Thursday, November 12, 2020

Is Trump viewed as so infallible that even posting critical comments destroys my crediblity?!

Ever since I have been posting articles about Trump - in particular his blatant lies - I have received comments that this inappropriate. There are two explanation give.1) Because the topic is viewed as irrelevant to a Jew and thus I am wasting energy to do so. 2) Because criticism of Trump is mistaken since he is fighting the evil of Obama and the Clintons and therefore there is something wrong with my understanding of truth and reality if I dare suggest he is a liar and buffoon.

I have not taken these comments too seriously. I have noted that Trump propensity to lie is causing real damage - not just to America  - but to the world. That he is bringing about an unhealthy change in the relationship to truth and democracy. While there can be legitimate differences in how to govern or what programs are viewed as legitimate - but that there should be no argument about the importance of truth. There is no question that Trump makes up "alternative facts' such as that 3 million illegal voters cast votes for Clinton. That he makes false accusations such as that his phone was tapped by Obama - without any proof. Etc etc etc.

This week I received a new claim. My correspondent - who has a solid reputation - wrote the following. Up until I started posting about Trump I was viewed by many as the source of truth dealing with things such as child abuse, halacha, rabbinic scandals (e.g, Tropper) and the incredible perversion of halacha and rabbinic leadership - the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter.

My correspondent said he personally knows many people - including rabbis - who view me a credbile source of information and especially for the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter I am the only source. He therefore expressed pain that he had gotten feedback from various people including rabbonim - that what they perceived as my irrational obsession with Trump - had destroyed my crediblity on all the other issues.

In other words, despite my full documentation of the Kamientsky-Greenblatt heter - these people have decided that since I am a nut there is no reason to be concerned about the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter or anything else that I might discuss.

My understandings is that rabbis who will dismiss all the documentation solely because it has been reported by someone who is critical of Trump - means simply they are looking for any excuse to duck responsiblity for the matter. However my correspondent disagreed.

Out of the respect I have for this individual, I decided to make a poll to ascertain what is the dominant view there. There are 2 issues that have two alternatives. Thus there are four question and everyone should check two boxes.

1) Do the posting about Trump in fact destroy my credibility about the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter and other matters and 2) Is this an important question.


190 comments :

  1. Yes... destroys your credibility
    Chag Sameach

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please continue posting on Trump. It is disheartning that so many in the frum community support this menuval and excuse away his lies and obscenities. Daas Torah has taken a stand and is a voice of reason while the majority of the frum media has become nothing more than a right wing infomercial. True Daas Torah is not synonymous with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity even if Yated and others would like to make people think so. It is a bizayon and a stain on many talmidei chachamim that they energetically supported a man like Trump. Are the values of frum yiddeshkeit limited to standing against the LGTBQ community and supporting Israeli settelments? Rav Shach opposed settelments! Is it a mitzvah to be ill informed, paranoid and believers in all types of conspiracy theories? Is it a violation of ikrei emunah to believe in global warming? Lets us continue to be an Am Chacham Vnavan and recognize Trump for the hatemongering imposter that he is. Keep on posting. It is an important issue. It is a Jewish issue. It is a frum issue.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I mostly ignore the political posts here since politics isn't your area of expertise. And I get most of my political reading elsewhere. And I disagree with your view about Trump.

    That said, it doesn't affect how I view your halachic posts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No & no. (Second "no" because, as you suspected, the havamina is stupid.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't read your posts on Trump. I feel my understanding of politics is superior than yours.
    Unlike politics, your views on Jewish thought and Halacha is Superior than mine in many, many respects, which is why I frequent your blog. To learn.

    Regarding your trustworthiness, although the issue of trump obviously isn't and can't be compared to real issues, your insistence of posting op-ed's, one after another looking at the issue in a one-sided manner, doesn't speak well of your agenda.
    Makes you look like a person with a preconceived notion of something, and trying to look for different ways to prove that he's right. That's not intellectual. That's not you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1) No. It shows you are more concerned about Truth, rather than "praise". It displays your credibility on all the other issues, including issues I disagree with (such as on women's issues). 2) Yes. Especially since the percentage of frum community support of Trump is more than the national. I think the disproportionate support in the frum community has been mostly out of lack of access to facts on a number of important issues, and so it isvery important to discuss these issues.

    Ironically, I think the Heter issue might have caused some not to take what you say about Trump seriously. I personally know one individual Trump supporter who has used that as an excuse to stop reading your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1) It sure isn't helping 2) Only if you take it seriously but my experience is that you don't learn from your critics so the answer is no.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have no problem with your disliking Trump but the quantity of articles is off-putting. Why would a rabbi have so much time for politics? To me it hurts your credibility some.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don''t write the articles. Unfortunately there is an abundance of good articles so it doesn't take much time to find them and post them

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is almost unrelated, but regardless of where one stands on these questions, I do agree that it would be nice to have 3 or 4 category divisions in the blog that allowed one to filter it, so that essentially all the politics stuff was in one place without swallowing, say, issues psychological regarding from Jewry (abuse) or rabbinical authority or meta-halakha & whatnot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find that your behaviour about Trump bordering on an obsession. So yes, it makes your credibility overall damaged. I would like to see you as a balanced provider of valuable information. And you should be sticking to your area of expertise, which is the primary reason I read your blog at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. oh i didn't think of that
    so maybe it's a topic that you are getting into
    ok i change my vote

    ReplyDelete
  13. Listen I grew up in NYC. I know all about Trump. I have been watching him since 1979 or so. We all know he's crooked. He's been cheating people forever.

    ReplyDelete
  14. True: “While there can be legitimate differences in how to govern or what programs are viewed as legitimate - but that there should be no argument about the importance of truth.”
    “so, at this time, I have turned and planned to do good to Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. Have no fear! These are the things you are to do: Speak the truth to one another, render true and perfect justice in your gates. And do not contrive evil against one another, and do not love perjury, because all those are things that I hate—declares the Lord. And the word of the Lord of Hosts came to me, saying, Thus said the Lord of Hosts: The fast of the fourth month, the fast of the fifth month, the fast of the seventh month, and the fast of the tenth month shall become occasions for joy and gladness, happy festivals for the House of Judah; but you must love honesty and integrity.” (Zechariah 8:15-19).
    See http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/20268
    For eight years Israel was betrayed and America was duped by a charmer.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It would be more "factual" to say that for eight years, xenophobic conspiracy theorists "duped" you and other Trumpians to "believe" you were being "duped by a charmer" and a "hater of Israel". Now, America and Israel are being led astray by one or more pathological liars.

    ReplyDelete
  16. yes it is not always easy to identify Satan. Is he the friendly guy who gives unhealthy advice or is he your opponent who tries to block progress?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Although I don't read the articles , I have already made up my mind that Trump is not just about politics but being a moral ands successful human being. I think the so-called 'obsession ' here with Trump has to weighed up with the silence and ignoring the moral issues. I do read your comments which are insightful and perceptive

    ReplyDelete
  18. That is an interesting observation. It reminds me of the "satan" that attempted to obstruct Bilaam. It would seem that the initial "obstructionism" of the opponent was actually in Bilaam's best interest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. But you do write the slanted title that treats the New York Slimes and the Washington Prost as toras lukshen. Why not post of some Newt Gingrich's or Sean Hannity's opposite views?

    Donald Trump is far from infallible or perfect. But you treat the good he does, whether it was the loan of his plane to Rabbi Ten or the support of a terminally ill woman, as inconsequential. On the contrary, those are indicators of someone with far greater character than his2016 opponent who laughed about her client getting away with rape of a 12-year old!

    ReplyDelete
  20. ... vs. Lavan, the "white", who puts on the façade of loving family, but in reality is a thieving, duplicitous enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  21. you keep repeating the lie about Clinton Why? You keep repeating his good deeds as if they were who he was and totally ignore the rotten and corrupt liar that is his normal personna - Why?

    Feel free to send me some opposing views and I will consider posting them

    ReplyDelete
  22. She did not laugh about her client getting away with rape of a 12-year old. Please cut it out with the lies already.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Because it is not a lie about Clinton. I heard the taped interview played, did you? You keep calling every piece of obvious hyperbole he says a lie while you didn't say the same about Clinton's and Obama's blatant lies.

    I am sure you know how to post the article with Rabbi Wagner's expression of Trump's Zechus Avos ( https://yated.com/trumps-shul ) Rabbi Ten's article ( http://hamodia.com/2016/11/15/donald-trumps-early-thanksgiving )

    ReplyDelete
  24. Your credibility has not diminished in my eyes, but I can understand why it might in others'. It's one of those us-vs.-them stories. The liberals push values we disagree with. Therefore, some people feel we must side with the opposition, regardless of his flaws. I don't know why so many Orthodox people are trying to support and whitewash Trump when he is clearly a rotten person. That doesn't mean I'm going to go vote for gay marriage now! I still maintain conservative values, even as I deplore Trump. But to the black-and-white folks out there, you will probably look like a liberal because you are putting him down.

    ReplyDelete
  25. She sure did laugh so YOU cut it out with the lies!.
    "The guy was accused of raping a 12-year-old girl. Of course he claimed
    that he didn’t. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him
    take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in
    polygraphs (laughter).” https://youtu.be/Tor00iWUhDQ?t=99

    ReplyDelete
  26. She laughed about her loss of faith in polygraph, you illiterate.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I appreciated your fearlessly taking on the Kaminetzky case, and I disagree with you about Trump. But I think that I'm capable enough of reaching my own conclusions about what I read about. I don't need to rely on someones's "credibility" in making that decision. So in the future, I'll keep to the same formula.

    However there are two points which I feel are worth mentioning.

    One. I used to visit this blog quite often, to broaden my horizons in the field of Torah, and to see what's being discussed. But since this blog has morphed into a political discussion blog, I see little benefit in visiting it, other than to check if there is something of substance I may have missed. The reason is that I fail to see the direct connection between Trump and Daas Torah, which is the stated raison d'être of this blog. I know that you can find explanations to rationalize it, but at the end of the day, it's all tangential.

    Two. I see both AF and Trump, each in their own category, as relatively "normal". You obviously will dispute the part about Trump. However your continued obsession with bashing Trump, has strangely led me to a certain insight as to why the Kaminetzkys might view AF as a total "meshugana".

    In short, what you think about Trump, is what they think about AF. I could try to convince you from today until tomorrow that you're wrong on Trump, and I will be talking to the wall. The same is with you talking to the Kaminetzkys and their supporters about AF. Their mind is made up, and nothing will change it, despite the fact that they know that many others disagree with them.

    So too regarding Trump. Nearly 63 million people voted for him. They obviously saw him fit to be president. You have a right to disagree, which is fine. But your stubborn obsession in continuing to harp about it, just makes it easier for me to start understanding the Kaminetzky's intransigence about AF being fit to be a husband, in the face of nearly across the board opposition to their Heter. It's because they "rationally" think that they're right, and no convincing will make them think otherwise. Just like you, regarding Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The fact Trump's flaws are so glaring is how we know he is NOT an imposter. That he is a menuval is not in dispute. His predecessors were far worse (Bill Clinton, John Kennedy, ..) as are many prominent goyim who like women. But what haters like you don't want to see is what Rabbi Wagner and Rabbi Ten have seen from their own personal experience is that Trump is decent man who cares about people. It is hatemongers like YOU who have cut off his son Eric and daughter Ivanka from raising funds for a children's hospital that has helped many Jewish children!! The lies about this man far exceed his exaggerations and hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  29. You obviously have no idea the meaning of illiterate. Take a look in your mirror.

    Yes, she laughed because she knew her client was a guilty rapist of a 12-year old and she knew how to use an incorrect result from a polygraph to help him get away with it using the "the vagaries of the legal system. You need to learn to read because nobody here said she laughed at the rape victim. I very clearly wrote she "laughed about her client getting away with rape". And if you think that is any better than if she laughed at the victim's suffering, you are as heartless as Hillary.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I agree with the majority of the posters.
    YES!! Your obsession with Trump is ruining your credibility. I have never before commented on your blog (or any blog, for that matter) but joined Disqus tonite so that I could finally tell you what I truly believe most people believe. Drop. It. Already.
    For the record, I voted for Hillary (the first Democrat, ever) because I fully concur with you that Mr. Trump is in no way deserving of the Presidency. But the man won fair and square and it is now time (was months ago) to move on. Wishing you many more years of your continued avodas hakodesh!!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Try again. She did not laugh about her client getting off. She laughed (chuckled, actually) about the insight she gained during that trial about the lack of reliability of some aspects of the legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does Trump keep any of the laws of benei noach? If a goyishe adulterer and thief were to give all his fortune to charity, the noachide laws will still require that he be executed - beheading (for adultery with a married non-jewish women and stealing), stoning (for adultery with an "engaged" jewish), and strangulation (for adultery with a married jewish). So if you want to justify to a Torah true Jew, Trump's right to be the leader of the world, you have to show that he of all the "qualified" candidates was/is the most faithful to the laws of noach! Otherwise you are peddling in heresy!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Your are the one being heartless, by consistently defaming anyone who opposes your champion (dein Herr und Gebieter) Trump.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You definitely are not familar with the facts of the Friedman case
    Their claim is based on an invalid psychiatric report based primarily on what Tamar told the psychiatrist
    he did not meet wirh Aharon

    You are simply ignoring the facts and saying all opinions are equal
    Facts should matter

    Voting doesn't mean that a person was fit and always must be viewed as competent

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey! Look at the sequence in the letters here. I responded to Joshua's nasty remark, not the other way around. In fact throughout the campaign and since the election it has been the Hillary supporters who have been defamatory but call the respondents the ones doing it. As for your's, there is only one Lord & Master, Hashem Yisborach, who saw fit to triumph Trump over a very nasty woman.
    We can only speculate why Hashem chose DJT but Rabbis Wagner & Ten present good reasons. As far as I'm concerned I would find it quite acceptable if Trump would resign and elevate Mike Pence to the Presidency, would you?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Now why is it you refuse to give Trump as much measure of looking in a good light as you give Hillary ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. First of all, goyishe men like Trump are not adulterers if the woman is single as Marla Maples was when he cheated on his first wife. So unless you have proof that he committed the acts you describe, you have nothing but hypothetical speculation. There is nothing to justify, Trump was elected President and he will occupy that post for at least 4 years. if you want to criticize him for stupid policies, gezunta heit. But the nastiness and falsehoods about him are what undermine this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  38. good light is not the issue. It is that his nature is far different than any other American politician except for perhaps Joe McCarthy

    ReplyDelete
  39. No, it's the politicians and media who without any proof accuse Trump of colluding with the Russians who are like Joe McCarthy. And the reason Trump got elected was because he is different from the political elite. The electorate saw Hillary Clinton as being the same, if not worse, as those who were already in power in Washington.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "different" - clearly doesn't mean better

    ReplyDelete
  41. I would be a lot happier with the Pence.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Neither does it mean worse.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I'm think that I'm quite familiar with the facts of the Friedman case, and how the Heter hinges on the invalid psychiatric report.

    But to play devil's advocate, I will suggest that the Kaminetzkys believe that the Heter is valid because even if the psychiatric report was obtained through subterfuge, it's still accurate. This is because they "know" AF well, and they assess him to be crazy, and that any reasonable psychiatrist would also certify him as meshuga", were they to actually meet him. So at the end of the day, the Heter is still valid because it's based on "facts".

    Likewise, you have a Ph.D.in psychology, so you "know" that Trump is unfit to serve as POTUS, even though you've never met him and had an opportunity to diagnose him.

    It's interesting to note, that the American Psychiatric Association has a ethics policy that explicitly prohibits the diagnosis of politicians at a distance. This is to prevent medicalizing what is essentially no more than a political disagreement. But psychiatrists and psychologists are now publicly diagnosing Trump, because they feel compelled by the higher call of national interest to break any restrictions against diagnosis at a distance.

    ReplyDelete
  44. To say someone is liar or incompetent violates no ethical rules nor does it need a personal meeting

    ReplyDelete
  45. I don't intend to join the chorus of aye-sayers vs. naysayers regarding Trump. He's here to stay for the next 4 years, barring him dying, becoming incapacitated, or impeached.

    I merely noted what I see as a parallel between you and the Kaminetzkys, which is that your'e both perfectly comfortable making assessments about people, which you're 100% certain about their accuracy, because it's based on "facts".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Incredible that you equare the validity of a phony halachic plot and the "facts" made up to justify it with the media reports of events which are based on careful research from multiple sources that are readily verifiable

    ReplyDelete
  47. I actually do. I don't dislike Trump personally, I just think he is totally unqualified to be the president, that he is easily influenced by his nefarious divisors, that he is susceptible to emotional overreactions, that he has no intellectual curiosity concerning or any understanding of any of the issues facing America, that he is totally unable to admit error, and that he is unable to separate truth from fiction. Other than that, I have no problem with him, and would appreciate seeing him going back to hosting a reality television program.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I don't intend to try to change your mind about Trump, nor to debate his virtues or faults. It really doesn't matter to me what anybody thinks about him. I have my own approach to the "sugya", which works for me and my comfort zone, and doesn't need validation from anybody else.

    Personally, I agree with you that the Heter is not valid. I merely intended to illustrate a parallel of your behavior vis a vis Trump, to the Kaminetzkys position on AF.

    Like you, their mind is made up, based on the "facts" as they see them. Your'e both perfectly comfortable making assessments about people, which you're 100% certain about their accuracy. Nothing will make you or them change their minds, despite the fact that you all know that many others disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...at the knee of whose main henchman (an OTD, former Brooklyn yeshiva bachur, incidentally) Trump learned his craft.

    According to longtime, recently deceased biographer Wayne Barrett, Roy Cohn was, after Trump's father, Trump's closest influence. Cohn's mob connections helped Trump strike advantageous deals to have the unions tolerate him getting non-union labor for the fraction of the price. And apparently Cohn continued throughout his life to be something of a close mentor.

    good NYT survey of their history

    Barrett interview on public radio [only 2,400 views in 10mos!!]

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thank you for writing what you did. I used to be a regular reader of this blog, but stopped reading it for the reasons you mentioned. In fact, the only reason I saw this thread was due to your comment (further down on this thread) being in the recent comments section on the sidebar.

    ReplyDelete
  51. I can only speak for myself.

    Going forward, as it stands right now, you have lost the credibility to be able to do what you did with this "heter", or what did you did with Tropper, Kolko Jr. and so many other cases. You are seen as a person who is now willing to bend the literary truth in order to achieve what you perceive to be a greater good and greater truth. Well, that's what Tropper felt! That's what the CBD felt. That's what people involved in the "heter" fiasco felt and feel. That's what those who tried to destroy Rabbi Sorscher felt. The list goes on....

    I could try to give you specific examples of why I feel this way, but over the past few months I have grown used to not receiving a cogent reply as to why you think my reasoning is incorrect or as to why you disagree with what I wrote. So, I won't bother. This is only true in the realm of American politics. But that's what the vast majority of your blog has turned into.

    Several months ago, in late October or early November, I sincerely suggested that you run two blogs - one for politics and one for what you used to write about. You responded that you do not intend to discuss politics - other than in isolated situations - after the election is over and the results are accepted. Unfortunately, over four months after the election, this has not yet happened.

    May I respectfully suggest that you divide you blog into two sections. One can have all the dopey pictures of our president. It can have all the praise for Hillary Clinton. It can have all the praise for Barak Hussain Obama. It can employ all the double-standards, hyperbole and even hypocrisy in order to achieve the greater good and greater truth.

    But then, in addition, keep the original Daas Torah blog covering what you used to cover. Please separate, segregate and divide these. In my opinion, the synergy is not working properly and can never work properly. Truth and secular political activism do not go together. (Please think about the quote that you site from the introduction of Igros Moshe Vol 8

    ReplyDelete
  52. No. I think that your arrogant attitude and your reporting on tamar friedmann destroys your credibility and attracts a certain kind of persons to your blog, who now resent your attitude towards trump.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Trump posts are boring as he.. and there 10000 goyish journalists that can do it just as well or better

    ReplyDelete
  54. Rabbi Wagner is a fine man but he knows absolutely nothing about Donald Trump. He apparently had some minor acquaintance with Trump's father whom he describes as being a fine man. I will take his word on that because Trump's father was wise enough to recognize that his son Donald exhibited severe personality disorders and sent him to a military academy to try to correct his behavioral abnormalities.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Trump is an imposter. This is true even if you write not in big capital letters.

    One who expresses outrage at fake news stories but then goes on to spread unfounded slander such as: Ted Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, 3 million voters voted illegally, buses took MA voters to NH and Obama wiretapped him is an imposter.

    One who claims to be the least anti semitic person in the world but calls a Hasidic reporter a liar and tells him to sit down, cannot condemn David Duke, makes racially tinged remarks to the RJC and wont condemn antisemitic hate mail to reporters critical of his wife is an imposter.

    One who rails against trade deals and claims to care about the American worker but manufactures his companies suits, ties and shirts overseas is an imposter.

    One who says that he never settles lawsuits but then settles the Trump U case is an imposter.

    One who quotes the bible to Evangelicals but boasts about forcing himself on ladies and engages in all type of immoral filth is an imposter.

    One who claims to be a Republican but was a registered Democrat and contributed handsomly to Hillary and Bill Clinton is an imposter.

    Trump is no decent man. He is vile, sick and cunning.

    And no his predecessors were not far worse.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Really sorry about Eric and Ivanka Children's Hospital fundraiser but it is Trump and his cohorts that are throwing 24 million off of medical insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  57. spoken like a true supporter of the Kaminetskys

    ReplyDelete
  58. With your campaigns against "get on demand", you attract a certain crowd to your blog: in general men who use the word "feminism" as an insult, who feel sorry for themselves and about the fact that in today's world, it is not enough to be male (and white?) to always be right, to always be privileged, to always be deferred to.

    This is also the kind of crowd who likes Trump.

    So it is not really astonishing that your laudable efforts to unmask Trump's lies, inconsistencies, dishonesties, do not meet much enthusiasm with your blog crowd.

    Your arrogant attitude plays a role insofar as it tends to chase away and censor anyone who does not agree with you, so that you do not have a very diversified blog audience any more, but you selected for Trump-Fans.

    ReplyDelete
  59. What will you conclude if the results show that it does ruin your credibility?
    1) That you must reevaluate your way of looking at things as many people disagree with you so they like have a valid point.
    2) That you will capitulate to them although they are silly, but because it's not good to say a davar sh'aino nishma.
    3) That you know best no matter what anybody else thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Barret had a certain ax to grind, vis a vis both trump and Roy Cohn. Don't rely on him for that.

    Roy Cohn was his lawyer for a specialized case, who introduced him to the people who helped him in the NY real estate and construction industries. And that includes the mob, who controlled NYC construction in the 70s and 80s.

    And Roy Cohn died a few short years after he first met him; couldn't have been much of an influence, as opposed to a legend he might have wanted to cultivate

    And while his father was some level of shomer shabbat, he was never a yeshiva bochur.

    ReplyDelete
  61. The better person does not get chosen president. Or any other job.

    The greatest one does.

    ReplyDelete
  62. R Wagner was. (Died under mysterious circumstances.)

    ReplyDelete
  63. In my eyes you have destroyed your credibility to a great degree. Let me explain.

    When you posted about Friedman, you came across as someone whose only interest was the truth, who fought against corruption and evil fearlessly. This was a breath of fresh air in the blogosphere, which is composed mostly of liberal writers with a specific anti-Jewish agenda. The frum websites which do reflect classical orthodox values, tend to shy away from controversy, especially those controversies that occur within the orthodox community, and involve orthodox Jews of standing. Thus, your blog filled an important need.

    However, now that you post about Trump's flaws obsessively, a couple of things have become clear.

    a. You lack objectivity. Yes Trump has many flaws, but so does every single politician. Singling out only Trump, demonstrates that you ignore the flaws of those candidates you can more easily identify with. Further, Trump has also several positive qualities. He maintains conservative values to some degree, he is a genuine ohev-Yisrael, he is a gentleman in his private dealing and so on. Ignoring his positive qualities is further proof of your lack of objectivity.

    b. You lack nuance. Yes, Trump makes many wild claims. However, this is his way of expressing himself. By taking his words literally and not in the spirit in which he intended them, that shows that you are incapable of appreciating nuance and subtlety.

    c. You are obsessive. You don't like Trump. We get that. Really. You accomplish absolutely nothing by posting this point again and again. You could spend your time much more productively by posting about subjects which are important to your constituency. Posting dozens of posts which reiterate the same point over and over, makes you a mono-maniac.

    Now back to the Friedman fiasco. If I originally took your words and posts at face value, I now question whether a. you were objective, b. if you did not catch subtle nuances which might impact significantly your understanding of what actually occurred. Further, if I thought originally that you were posting l'shem shamayim, now I realise that c. by nature you are obsessive, and that once a subject catches your attention you simply cannot let go.

    I think there is room for you to ask yourself, what you wish to accomplish with this blog, and if your goal is the betterment of orthodox society, then the next question should by, what is the best way of reaching this goal.

    Hatzlacha Rabbah

    ReplyDelete
  64. This is a valid point.
    Your blog is becoming boring with the quantity of Trump related articles you are posting.
    And by boring, I also mean irrelevant.
    You need to get back to doing what you do best.
    Failed Messiah is gone, Frum Follies is basically gone....and soon it seems this blog too will be gone in one form or another to be replaced by a political commentary blog.
    Now that would be a shame.

    ReplyDelete
  65. And you knew Trump personally I suppose when his father sent him to work? You saw personality disorders? You are making stuff up as you go to try to justify your claims. Oh! I guess you have a personality disorder.

    How about Rabbi Hershey Ten, did he know Donald Trump? Why don't you go through his article and refute it (with proof) point by point.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Trump himself told the Washington Post why his father sent him to a Military Boarding School.

    He said that his parents thought the discipline “would be good for me because I was ­rambunctious.” “I was a wise guy, and they wanted to get me in line,”.“He was essentially banished from the family home,” said his biographer, Michael D’Antonio. Two childhood friends remember that " As a fierce competitor, Trump could erupt in anger, pummeling another boy or smashing a baseball bat if he made an out, and that he misbehaved so often in school that his initials became his friends’ shorthand for detention."

    Trumps personality disorder is readily apparent from the way he craves attention and fabricates reality see above. See also open letter from 33 Psychologist expressing concern about his mental state.

    What does the account of R'Heshy Ten show? Trump sent him his plane. Trump did a kind deed in his life. Wow! Great! The reality is that he has contributed far less to charity than other billionaires. There are no hospitals, libraries or charitable organizations that bear his name (besides his own Trump foundation slush fund). Instead his name is plastered on Hotels and Golf Courses. He is an over inflated ego and sense of self. Bill Gates didn't name his company Gatesoft and Warren Buffet didn't name his Buffetshire Hathaway. Helping R' Heshy Ten does not magically turn an egotistical menuval into a fine man or a person worthy of the presidency.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I believe that Rav Shmuel Wagner of Yeshiva Ohr Yerushalayim who was interviewed by Yated is alive and well.

    ReplyDelete
  68. And even Rabbi Wagner in the article you referenced above described Trump as a "wild child"

    ReplyDelete
  69. Regarding Cohn's upbringing, thank you for the correction. Cohn's father seems to have been as you say, and the NYT obit reports Cohn having been schooled at Fieldston, not a ModOx yeshiva school. And I can't locate right now my source for my prior misapprehension. (Could be I mixed him up with Dershowitz?)

    As for the rest, I don't know where you're getting your facts from. The following sources all paint quite a different -- and in some a very detailed -- picture, esp. the last, which among other things cites the early Vanity Fair profile that reported them speaking 10-15 times a day. And as for the bare facts, well, they knew each other from the time Trump was age 27-40, and that certainly undercuts your sweeping inference that there "couldn't have been much of an influence."


    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/20/roy-cohn-donald-trump-joseph-mccarthy-rosenberg-trial

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/former-mccarthy-aide-showed-trump-how-to-exploit-power-and-draw-attention/2016/06/16/e9f44f20-2bf3-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/donald-trump-roy-cohn-mentor-joseph-mccarthy-213799



    Also, the ghostwriter of the Art of the Deal, who spent several months attached to Trump at the hip and listening to his daily phone calls, in his 2016 interview with NPR (about the New Yorker article that week profiling him & his thoughts on Trump), referenced their friendship as very significant, and he's certainly a firsthand authority on Trump, so it's more than reasonable to conclude that the basic gist of the press here is accurate.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This is the first real substantive point made on this side of the issue. It's a fair consideration, that the other issues demanding this blog's focus are too worthy for it to be distracted from them by an otherwise legitimate & important concern.

    There may be an argument to be made in response of course, or a good solution besides blinders, but it is a question that does actually beg DT's rumination.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Question for you, DT:

    I just checked the "Web version" of this blog (been reading on my mobile) and happened to notice the poll posted on sidebar. So do commenters need to fill out the Web form as well as comment here?
    (If so, fyi, I wasn't clear on that. Thought you were just inviting comments on the specified questions.)

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  72. If you want to be counted in the poll you need to respond directly to the poll

    ReplyDelete
  73. I suppose you were a perfect angel at that age.

    ReplyDelete
  74. That he doesn't plaster his name on hospitals he contributes to you see as a chesoron? You want him to rename St Judes?

    Your belittling of him sending a private plane empty to the West Coast and back for a complete stranger shows just how little you know of the costs involved as well as your petty meanness.

    Do you know the meaning of the word Trump? It fits as the name of a company so why shouldn't he have used it. Besides, the development company was incorporated as E. Trump & Son in 1927.

    That you don't like Donald Trump is clear. Just say so without convolutions.

    ReplyDelete
  75. See Milton's comments in http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2017/03/donald-trumps-big-health-care-lie-puts.html#disqus_thread

    ReplyDelete
  76. Have you forgotten the Access Hollywood tape? Trump proudly admitted to having tried unsuccessfully to seduce a woman he knew to be married.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Have you read Trump's autobiography?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Perhaps you didn't understand my pointy. The problem is not that Trump did not rename St Judes but that he gives virtually nothing to St. Judes. Most billionaires have been involved with causes and charitable giving such as the Gates Foundation and The Giving Pledge. The fact is that at 70 years old Trump has not championed any charitable cause and has not and been involved in charitable giving. His obsession and focus is primarily with promoting himself.

    I am not belittling for sending a plane. It is very nice act on his part but it is rather inconsequential and pales in comparison to the many vulgar and repulsive acts that he has done and continues to do.

    Yes I will say it I do not like Trump. I will say so in no uncertain terms. I do not like him for good reason. I do not like a man who made a name for himself by mocking others and name calling. I do not like a man who brought the public discourse of this country into the gutter,. I do not like a man that turned the presidential debates into an X rated TV show. I do not like a man that finds it appropriate to bring Biil Clinton's accusers to a debate with Hillary. I do not like a man refuses to ever apologize. I do not like a man who boasts of sexual abuse. I do not like a man who lies with impunity. I do not like a man that stokes hatred of others. I do not like a man that peddles conspiracy theories and paranoia. I thoroughly dislike Trump and all that he represents. What is shocking is that there are so many who are willing to ignore all this because he once sent a plane to Rabbi Ten.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Is this a serious comment? What does it have to do with anything? Am I president? Regardless my parents did not find it neccessary to send me to a Military boarding school, they did not banish me from my family home, I did not pummel other boys and smash bats when I got out and my friends did not use my initials as shorthand for detention. If Rabbi Wagner had met me 50 years ago his one memory wouldn't be that I was wild.

    All this is besides the point. I has said that Fred Trump was obviously wise because he recognized that his son had behavioral issues. You denied that. When I provide you with proof you ask rhetorically if I also had behaviorally issues. The issue is not me but Trump and it appears that you have conceded this point.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I do not know what Milton wrote. What I do know is that the non partisan CBO said that 24 million people will lose coverage under TrumpCare. (And this is after Trump promised that he would cover everybody)

    ReplyDelete
  81. There is evidence that he gave almost no charity at all between the years 2005 and 2015. His charitable foundation disbursed almost no funds beyond what had been donated by others, usually as a quid pro quo for services rendered. He has taken personal credit for donating money to charity in cases when A: He merely transferred other people's money, and B: He actually did not giver anything at all. This is all publicly available information, see the work of David Farenthold. If you think he is some sort of Yossele the Miser, giving out millions in secret while making it appear that he gives no charity, you are more delusional than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Don't know r Shmuel Wagner or yeshiva or yerushalayim.

    This r Wagner had a shul near / in trump village. His son was r feivel Wagner, rav of YIFH, who passed away a few years ago, also relatively young.

    ReplyDelete
  83. How much Kool-Aid did you drink in 2016? http://theblacksphere.net/2016/09/trumps-generosity-media-blackout/

    ReplyDelete
  84. You obviously read just the bullet points. Read it like Milton did.

    ReplyDelete
  85. And as many military school graduates will attest, they came out far better than when they went in and prepared for life. So obviously you have conceded that Trump's military school background helped prepare him for the Presidency. It's good to know we agree.

    ReplyDelete
  86. And that was just what it was, boasting.

    ReplyDelete
  87. He doesn't go around boasting of it. http://theblacksphere.net/2016/09/trumps-generosity-media-blackout/

    ReplyDelete
  88. First of all it was Hillary who turned the debates into an X rated show and brought the discourse into the gutter with her unfounded accusations about Trump and her "Miss Piggy" surrogate. Second, it was very appropriate after Hillary's shenanigans to bring the accusers of her husband who figuratively and literally soiled the White House . Baruch Hashem they did not return to it.

    ReplyDelete
  89. There is truth and there is the power to persuade. In truth, the evidence against the supposed heter is strong and simple enough that we don't care who the messenger is (but actually you did a fantastic job). This is similar to astronomy where we *use* the Greeks but *rely* on the Cheshbon. As far as the power to persuade, there might be people who your focus on Trump erroneously makes them disqualify you regarding the heter, and if there are a lot of those then you have to decide if it's worth it. But some of them anyway sympathize with the Ks, and are using your focus on Trump as an excuse. They don't want you to stop but to keep up what they consider self-incrimination. Also, if you ignore the critics you will show that you're only concerned with truth, which might gain you some power of persuasion. If you give in you validate the complaints, ("yeah, he's the one who *was* obsessed with Trump"-- i.e., the point of no return has already been reached).

    This being so, the answer to q #1 depends if you're focusing on truth or the power to persuade. I can't vote if the question isn't clear to me. And if you clarify now, those who already voted might not have understood the question that way when they voted and the poll has a flaw.

    Ditto for q #2. Your Trump position is irrelevant to the Heter - in truth - hence unimportant. But for the power to persuade, we don't know yet.

    For personal disclosure, and I should be forgiven for daring to maintain this attitude, Trump isn't my priority. I read Trump posts quickly and don't bother forming a strong opinion if the post is right or not. Whoever wants can post whatever they please and I'll study the posts that interest me. The complaints are reminiscent of the old protest, "there's nothing to read in the paper, I don't know why I bother reading it" / "there's nothing to watch on TV, I don't know why I bother watching it". Well, why not find something else?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Please don't twist what the CBO said. TrumpCare will result in 24 million less Americans being covered. This is due to its projected cuts in Medicaid and premium assistance. If you are a true conservative defend the plan on its merit shrinking government entitlements even if it leaves people uninsured, but please do not sugar coat what this plan will do to many Americans if it ever becomes law.

    ReplyDelete
  91. very important comment - thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  92. Please try sticking to the point at hand.

    1) You mentioned Rabbi Wagner. I responded that Rabbi Wagner was talking about Trump's father and not Trump. I said that I have no problem believing Trump's father was a fine man because Fred Trump recognized his son's behavioral issues and sent his son to military boarding school to help remedy them.

    2) You called me a hater and accused me of making it up. I responded with quotes from Trump himself and from his friends and biographer that described his behavioral issues. I mentioned that even Rabbi Wagner described him as wild.

    3) You responded by going off topic and asking me if I was an angel as a child. I responded that the issue we are discussing is Trump and not me.

    4) You responded that many people come out better from military school and that somehow this means that Trump also did and that I should therefore concede that despite all evidence to the contrary Trump is a good man and properly prepared for the presidency.

    You are starting to sound a whole lot like Sean Spicer tying himself in knots trying to defend his previous statements. You asked me how I know that Trump had behavioral issues as a child I showed you how I know. Please stop changing the subject and running circles around a direct response and proof.

    ReplyDelete
  93. If you find it appropriate to bring Bill's accusers to a debate and for one discuss his private parts in front of an entire nation then obviously we have nothing to continue talking about. Lets call it a day.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Great source of information why don't you also link to infowars and hannity

    ReplyDelete
  95. His other son R"Shmuel was the one interviewed by Yated in the article referenced above.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Funny, how much Trumpers seem to "know" about him....

    I didn't set out to point out the obvious, but he was relating a story of himself getting nowhere, leaving not much to boast about. So, migu already!

    ReplyDelete
  97. The NY Times said the same thing about the CBO report. The only one distorting here is you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Sure. Hannity is better than the Daily Beast that DT links to.

    ReplyDelete
  99. When did Trump ever discuss Bill Clinton's private parts? You are delusional because you apparently heard things during the debate that no one else did.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Nope. You're making things up as you go along to try to justify your position. And asking you if you were an angel was to make a point on topic. Many "wild children" grow up as fine adults who would lend even an expensive jet and pay for its fuel to help a sick child. Maybe you went the opposite way.

    ReplyDelete
  101. I disagree strongly.

    Saying all politicians have flaws is true. But Trump is out on a limb by himself. A truly despicable, repulsive individual. If you had an attractive wife would you leave her alone with Trump? Look how he shot down Turx's perfectly reasonable question, everything is ego and me me me.

    The man is קנאה תאוה וכבוד wrapped into one loathsome package.

    Notwithstanding the above, I do think r Daniel would serve everyone's purposes better by focusing on something else.

    ReplyDelete
  102. "His" is referring to Trump's, not Clinton's.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Have you read Trump's autobiography?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Please read what Trump has to say about violating the laws of noach on arayot in his autobiography "The Art of the Comeback". Here is what a republican senator Ben Sasse had to say bout it on twitter

    https://twitter.com/BenSasse/status/691443763730857984?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

    ReplyDelete
  105. I've read it. He says if he wrote the real stories his book would be a best seller. In essence, he said nothing. George Burns relates a similar tease in his book where he notes people read into a statement something he never said.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Which brings up that when Clinton was being impeached the Democrats (of which Trump was at that time) kept saying that Bill Clinton's sex life had no bearing on him being President. It's funny how they've flip-flopped.

    ReplyDelete
  107. Perfect explanation
    Thoughts of many!

    ReplyDelete
  108. Please read my comment before hitting the send button. I wrote "discussing ones privates" Trump discussed his own private parts in public. He is a sick lowlife.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Again you keep on going off topic. Will you admit that Fred Trump sent Donald to Military school because of behavioral issues? Yes or No. This is the issue. Please stick to the point.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I am the only one? Really? Is that why the American Medical Association opposes TrumpCare? Is that why the AARP opposes it? You purport to care about hospitals but the American Hospital association also opposes TrumpCare

    ReplyDelete
  111. Read the book again. He was explicit in his statement about adultery. It was not a tease...

    ReplyDelete
  112. Let me get this straight. Trump is always being called a liar on this blog. Yet on this this particular paragraph you say he's telling the truth?

    Besides, if it was acceptable for Bill Clinton why should Trump be held to a higher standard?

    ReplyDelete
  113. You're changing the topic. We were discussing specifically what the CBO said about the 14,000,000 people dropping their coverage. If you want to discuss the measure as a whole first finish with that.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Practice what you preach. As I've pointed out you don't stay on topic when it suits you to stray.

    Fred Trump was an excellent father who knew how to bring up his children. I do not know his particular reason for sending his 13-year old son Donald to military school. What matters is how he came out.

    ReplyDelete
  115. First of all you wrote "to bring Bill's accusers to a debate and for one discuss his private parts" sure sounds like you're discussing Bill's parts. Second, I never once heard Trump discuss his own private parts during a debate. He did discuss his hands and "something else". "Something else" is quite innocuous. He reportedly has a size 12 shoe, so what?

    ReplyDelete
  116. So it does not bother you that Trump, the paragon of conservative virtue, "boasted" about commiting serial adultery with married woman?!

    ReplyDelete
  117. You don't get it. The less people insured the higher the premiums for those who need health insurance! Which means more people will be unable to afford insurance. As more people drop out because it is too expensive, the premiums will rise even higher. That is how insurance works.

    ReplyDelete
  118. All those aspects (lack of objectivity, lack of nuance, obsession) were also obvious when the blogger decided to take on the Friedman "affair".

    It's just that back then you agreed, yet on Trump you disagree.

    But I suppose that your points a to c plus the fact that he will not listen to anybody is just what characterizes this blogger...

    ReplyDelete
  119. An intelligent person who believes what he just wrote would simply move on to something else. I disagree with your understanding

    ReplyDelete
  120. I never said I considered him "the paragon of conservative virtue". And neither do most of the people who voted for him. The election was between a greedy sow and a stinky boar. I chose the boar over the sow.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Which worked with all its flaws before Obamacare. Not perfectly but adequately. After Obamacare it became a nightmare for most. And those are the ones who will drop it.

    ReplyDelete
  122. They oppose it but they are not distorting the what the CBO wrote. That's you.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Its not 14 milllion people but 24 million people. That is precisely why the American Hospital Association opposes this horrible legislation. They do not want millions of uninsured showing up at their emergency rooms. My response directly addresses your comment.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Simply not true.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Why don't you know why Fred Trump sent his son to military school? I provided you with Donald's own words. He said his father sent him because of his behaviors. His biographer said the same thing. Do you all of a sudden not trust Mr. Trump or is it that you are such a chassid of the menuval president thaou also refuse for spreading baseless accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Why don't you know why Fred Trump sent his son to military school? I provided you with Donald's own words. He said his father sent him because of his behaviors. His biographer said the same thing. Do you all of a sudden not trust Mr. Trump or is it that you are such a chassid of the menuval president that you also refuse to apologize for spreading baseless accusations.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Right he was a master mechanech and that is why his son Fred Jr. was an alcholic who died at 40 from a life of alcholism.

    ReplyDelete
  128. It did not work before Obamacare. Do some basic research on how many bankruptcies due to health issue there have been before and after Obamcare. Do some research about people with pre-existing conditions, who could not get care. Do some research about people who were locked into jobs they did not want to remain in, because their care was employer-based. Has Obamacare been perfect? No. But that is mainly because of the intransigence of the Republican party, who would rather see Americans die than give Obama a legislative victory, and therefore refused to consider improvements to the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Sorry if I wasn't clear that "one to discuss his private parts" refers to Trump discussing his pwn private parts. One thing is abundantly clear Trump was discussing his private parts in front of an entire nation and not his shoe size.

    ReplyDelete
  130. I wish you were right Asher, that the only ones who will drop are those who found ACA a nightmare. But the realty is that it is those who cannot afford or even get insurance becuase they have preexisting conditions, the sick, the elderly, the lower income and the unemployed. Those who need healthcare the most!

    ReplyDelete
  131. A quiz for you Asher? Before ACA, who do you think found it more easy to get health insurance a pregnant woman wanting to have a her baby or one who wanted to abort?

    ReplyDelete
  132. It is not your voting for him that bothers me. It is the reasons you have presented for voting for him. You keep insisting that he was a more moral choice in terms of personality than Clinton (or Obama). But when one uses the objective standards of the laws of benei noach to assess this, one finds that this is not true. If you have other reasons for supporting Trump oher than his deficient moral character (when compared to Clinton and Obama), please present these.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Because I am not delving into the minutia of a huckster and aggrandizer. I know what Trump is and how flawed he is. And that is reason this blog should drop the Trump coverage. Because of pea brains like you who can't get it through your miniscule brains that most of us who voted for Trump did so because he was the lesser of two evils. That he used to be a menuval Democrat doesn't bother me. And what he did as an adult for sick children matters a heck more to me than what he did as child! Should I care how much you pooped in your diapers? Maybe it would explain your nastiness.

    ReplyDelete
  134. And he did so in a manner befitting the great comedians of old like George Burns who could do so by letting the audiences' dirty minds hear what they wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  135. "refused to consider improvements to the bill" ?? Obama NEVER wanted to consider working with the Republicans! He never called them to discuss anything! It was his way or nothing. Even Bill Clinton understood bipartisanship and how to work with the opposition. If Barack Hussein would have sat down once in a while with the Republicans instead of flying off on his multitude of vacations Trump would probably never have been a candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  136. You're saying it's different now?

    ReplyDelete
  137. What I know of him is that a lead-in tape that had to be dredged up is far less meaningful than one Maury Povich had readily accessible. https://youtu.be/DS0UH9Ibd88

    ReplyDelete
  138. Sometimes it hurts to hear the truth, the same truth from opposing points of view...

    ReplyDelete
  139. Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you just clueless?

    ReplyDelete
  140. Alright. Because he HAS demonstrated in several cases that despite his personal flaws he has HELPED people in need. He does know how to run a business and negotiate with normal business people. Congress and politicians are petty and vindictive but Trump knows where the bottom line is. And as his sister says, he plays to win.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Lies, lies, and more lies. Do you have a bottomless repository?
    Please listen to the interview in the link here (Who Pays for the Wall, about 45 minutes in) with the woman in charge of drafting the ACA.

    https://getcrookedmedia.com/here-have-a-podcast-78ee56b5a323#.86pv826xl

    ReplyDelete
  142. I agree with your last sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Weird shift of topic. (Are you taking cues from K.-A. Conway?)

    But I see your name posted a lot; clearly you carry on a lot of threads, so I'll just assume you're mixing this up with another.

    Background here is that after you conceded to DL that Trump is a "menuval" but no worse than any other President, and Progressive replied that he is still by Jewish standards a disgrace a la Noachide yardstick, you went on to accuse Progressive of perpetuating "nastiness and falsehoods" spread about Trump in referring to him as an adulterer, which assertion you characterize as baseless, "nothing but hypothetical speculation". It is to this last that I replied, a point of fact, and I pointed out that--whatever else one may want to conclude on the issue--as a factual matter there's good firsthand evidence that Trump IS a wanton adulterer, evidence that it would be hard to fault anyone for taking seriously (on not only common sensical but even halakhic grounds).

    Natural conclusion is that bestammazo Trump's spent some good part of his past, at least, as a happy adulterer. If someone wants to overlook that for other reasons or privately wish to believe the best, that it's despite appearances not really true, that's a private cheshbon. Offense, however, seems out of line, and there's no good reason for you not to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewishly informed disgust finding voice in this blogthread.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Yes.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obamacare-pregnancy-abortion_us_587fdc68e4b02c1837e9742d

    ReplyDelete
  145. Your comments refer to me as a hater, making things up, pea brain etc yet I am the one who is nasty? It is not the miniutia of a huckster but your very own comments that are in need of defending.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Like I said before there is obviously no point in arguing with one who believes that Trump was correct to bring Bill's accusers to a debate and that it fine that Trump discussed his OWN private parts in front of an entire nation.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Do you mind providing your source for "as a factual matter there's good firsthand evidence that Trump is a wanton adulterer".

    Trump is a big talker. That he is menuvaldik has never been disputed. He boasts a lot. Are all his boasts true? They're as true as his claim he was wiretapped. So here's the conundrum. Is he always to be taken at his word or are is much of it hype and/or distractions?

    Regardless, he is the President until at least 2021. It is a waste of time to keep harping on his alleged cuckolding. The only one who ever accused him of it was Mike Tyson and since Trump doesn't have a bite out of his ear it must be assumed that Tyson was irrationally jealous as Trump said.

    ReplyDelete
  148. And why should I believe her if she was one one of those who followed Jonathan Gruber's lead to hide Obamacare’s true costs from the public based on “the stupidity of the American voter”? ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/11/10/aca-architect-the-stupidity-of-the-american-voter-led-us-to-hide-obamacares-tax-hikes-and-subsidies-from-the-public/#3258132d7c05 )

    ReplyDelete
  149. Nah. I'm exactly 90 degrees making me right ;)

    ReplyDelete
  150. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9eda836819e766543e7de256e1c3b42fa60a900910287ac1cae76eacaf1fc6d0.gif

    ReplyDelete
  151. I should sit back and accept your insults when you began them? You can dish it out but you can't take it. You're like the little grade school bully who hits first but when someone punches back you accuse them.

    ReplyDelete
  152. It's my prior comment, for cryin' out loud!

    ReplyDelete
  153. It's my prior comment, for cryin' out loud!

    I believe Yehoshua already asked you very recently if you were being “deliberately obtuse, or are you just clueless?” And I find myself wondering here the same. Indeed, my comment was situated within a summary of our back’n’forth, so I am at a loss as to find room for your misunderstanding; this is not, after all, such a long thread that it should cause you that kind of confusion. I’ve just re-read it now, and it was definitely clear what I was referring to. In short, I’m sensing something wrong on the other end of this “discussion,” and I see I’m not the only one. What’s more, that Progressive two days ago within this very post called your attention to the same matter we’re discussing (Trump’s boasting of marital infidelity) doesn’t help allay my suspicions any as regards you’re being deliberate in misunderstanding. Is that really how you treat being wrong, with evasion?

    To answer the last part of your comment, the discussion here that you're in the midst of convoluting is not one where, far as I can tell, anyone is "harping on" anything. (This refers to your advice to quit harping on Trump's "alleged cuckolding", two comments ago.) That did not happen by either Progressive or by me; what did happen is you lost the thread of discussion twice--the same thread that I, after the first time, went to the trouble of re-summarizing for you (and for naught, so it would now seem). That's the discussion in which you appeared insistent on dismissing a perfectly reasonable point of view that regards Trump as unprincipled & amoral to the point of having been, among the many other regrettable things he was/is, an unrepentant adulterer.

    That that happens not to be your view of him is already clear. But the grounds for someone thinking so (in this case, Progressive, with me having pointed out those grounds as to why) are indisputably there. As you say, what to make of it? You fall on one side, he on another.

    So if you can't hold your view & still accommodate the presence of a contrasting one that's also defensible (and arguably more so, btw) without getting all bent out of shape, then you're wasting your time in discussion with anyone, as it's to prove a circular exercise from which you learn nothing & enlighten no one. Just an uncontroversial FYI for you, not that you asked.

    …And, of course, I mean to point out as well, as I did already, how far outside the topic under discussion you've wandered. Again. And I see I'm not the first to point that out, either.

    Can’t help but suspect these two last points--forensic myopia & compulsive digression--likely go hand-in-hand…. which brings us back to Yehoshua’s question: deliberate/clueless?

    ReplyDelete
  154. You don't have to believe her if you don't want. But it was you who made the claim that the Obama administration did not attempt to engage with Republicans on healthcare. What is the basis for that claim? Are you aware that they abandoned the single payer concept? Are you aware that they basically adopted the plan of a Republican governor?

    ReplyDelete
  155. Cute. But everyone at the time knew exactly what Trump was referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  156. Oh? Like everyone knew what Obama was referring to, http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico44/2012/06/obamas-joke-125518
    If a sitting President can do it so why not a candidate?

    ReplyDelete
  157. Because I remember news reports at the time. If the Democrats in Congress would now go to President Trump and offer to compromise he would listen, unlike his predecessor.

    ReplyDelete
  158. I just answered your question directly to Daas Torah. What you and so many others here keep failing to understand is that Trump is like a used-car salesman. He hypes, he uses innuendo, misdirection, titillation, etc..I remember how aghast people were just a short time after Trump helped the Ten family that he was cheating on his wife and divorcing her for the mistress. But we realized one thing had nothing to do with the other. He was still a good man with weaknesses of the flesh. He ran beauty pageants, and he helps one the contestants who has an incurable disease. You want to tear him down, there is plenty there. But do it with something substantive and relevant,

    ReplyDelete
  159. Well, depending on where you got your news reports from, and how reliable your memory is....

    ReplyDelete
  160. I never called you a name nor did I label you anything. I stuck to refuting many points in your argument and demonstrating why I believe that they are erroneous and wrong. Go back and look at all the comments. Once again you are throwing around baseless accusations and continuing with insults. Look, I can take your many insults (which I take as a sign of weakness in argument) just please do not flip it and complain about me being mean.

    ReplyDelete
  161. >" is it that you are such a chassid of the menuval president thaou also refuse for spreading baseless accusations"<

    That's why I called you a pea brain. I had made it quite clear numerous times that while I supported Trump over the alternative Democrat, I certainly am no "chasid" of his. I don't tolerate such nasty remarks nor the nasty tone you wrote it in.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Just to clarify this was your opening line "You are making stuff up as you go to try to justify your claims. Oh! I guess you have a personality disorder." Very nice and sweet.

    Now if by asking "are you such a chosid of the menuval president" I touched a raw nerve I (unlike the man that you constantly defend) sincerely apologize. I was just trying to figure out a reason for why why you refuse to admit that Fred Trump sent his son Donald to Military Boarding School because of his behavioral issues and why you refuse to retract the baseless allegation that "I made it up".

    ReplyDelete
  163. Hi Daren, jut to you give you a heads up. Our friend(s) Asher is probably a lawyer - he is very good at throwing in distractions.

    ReplyDelete
  164. You "asking" if I was if I was a "chasid of a menuval" was very definitely insulting. Apology accepted.

    When I said you were making stuff up I was specifically referring to your characterizing a wild child as having a personality disorder. Disciplinary problems and ­rambunctiousness of 13 year olds are not necessarily symptoms of personality disorders.

    ReplyDelete
  165. LOL!!
    If you want to know who I really am just pick me out from here, https://www.linkedin.com/search/results/index/?keywords=Asher%20kaufman

    ReplyDelete
  166. To refresh your failing memory.

    http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo/

    ReplyDelete
  167. Wow. the article is almost prophetic.

    "I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead."

    ReplyDelete
  168. Since when is intelligence democratic? I honestly don't know why DT is taking a poll, except as a kind of sociological survey of his readership.

    The reason our Republic, the USA, is only minimally democratic (i.e., via one-third, & indirectly at that), is that the founders had an extremely healthy suspicion of popular tendencies & extreme skepticism for the advisedness of popular opinion. The reason the people have a place in our government at all (i.e., an electoral place) is merely to help us avert tyranny. No more.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I am taking the poll simply to see how many deluded individuals are reading my blog. So far there are no so many. A previous poll produced over 1100 responses. This one shows that most of the readers have zero interest in the topic

    ReplyDelete
  170. Makes sense. That actually explains the anomaly of skewedness results to answers between Q2 & Q4.

    ReplyDelete
  171. 1,100 responses at a time when you had more than three times the amount of readers. Besides, the very title of this post reveals a complete lack of either understanding or wanting to be even-handed. You're pretending as if the reason you're losing your credibility is because the president is views as infallible, when there's an entirely different and logical reason for it.

    ReplyDelete
  172. > "Barack Obama badly wanted Republican votes for his plan." < That's a load of crap! If you want to prove that point show me an actual quote stated to the Republicans in Congress offering to compromise, not an opinion piece.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Trying to normalize Trump by bringing up real and fake comparison with Clinton is simply a bad joke and a waste of everyone s time

    ReplyDelete
  174. One thing you can never show a comparison between Trump and Clinton is you cannot show any equivalent mitzvah between what Trump did for the girl Megan with brittle bone disease, what he did for Melissa Young who is suffering from an incurable and most notable to our people what he did for Avraham Moshe Ten. I will say it a thousand times over and over. When the choice was between two despicable people I chose the one who at least demonstrated he had redeeming qualities.

    ReplyDelete
  175. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can redeem a kofer ba'ikkar (a denier of reality), according to our Torah. That is why the 1st commandment for both jews and benie noach is to recognise/know Hashem!

    ReplyDelete
  176. There is no linkage between the two matters.
    my only misgivings were about this becoming a quasi political discussion board.
    Some commenters are more energetic in debating the Trump politics than discussing Torah subjects.

    ReplyDelete
  177. It's not about critical comments. It's the hypocrisy.
    Unnamed sources say something about Trump and you post it as truth.
    Named sources say things about Biden and you deny they ever did.
    We want truth and objectivity from you.

    ReplyDelete
  178. I want truth and objectivity from you Why does a named source mean it was true? - Trump lies all the time and we know he is a liar

    ReplyDelete
  179. Yes, but Biden is also a liar who lies all the time. by focusing only on Trump's lies you implicitly approve of Biden's because you like him. Is lying wrong or it is only unacceptable when Trump does it?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Yes, it destroys your credibility about all other matters.
    This is not because it follows logically, but because we don't think logically, but through heuristics (mental shortcuts).
    And the most common mental shortcut is to think in terms of who the speaker is (how I relate to him in general) rather than the quality of his arguments.

    So, yes, once you become not relatable, you become not credible (because that's how people make up their minds about stuff.).

    ReplyDelete
  181. Really!
    please provide example of all the time!

    ReplyDelete
  182. I would have thought that would be quite obvious on a blog called Daas Torah, given that in that world, the heuristic is considered, in relation to clear thought, a ma'aleh, not a chisaron!

    ReplyDelete
  183. Here is the low down.

    There are people who pride themselves on following their Rabbis. Thus, the more outrageous the Psak from their Rabbi, the nore pride they take in following it. Privately, they may acknowledge their Rabbi made a mistake, but in practice they follow the Rabbi.

    These people don't care at all about hearing criticism of their Rabbi.

    Then, you have those who respect and follow their Rabbi -- but not off a cliff. If their Rabbi issues an outrageous Psak, they expect there to be a Halachically valid reason for it. They know they may not be privy to the rationale for the Psak, but they trust their Rabbi. They also expect their Rabbi to share his reasoning with great scholars who are of his caliber.

    If their Rabbi holds his cards close to his chest, their confidence in their Rabbi will wane.

    For this group, it is irrelevant what the source of material is that leads them to question their Rabbi. If they can be given the raw data pointing to their Rabbi making an error, they can evaluate it and then do their own investigations to independently verify some or all of the data.

    Thus, for this group, the blog owner posting about anything else on any subject cannot undermine the raw data that was posted here about a woman married through a valid Kiddushin ceremony being given permission to marry someone else while her first husband is verifiably alive and has not given her a Get.

    Another group is in between the first group of diehard followers and the second group which in extreme circumstances will break with their Rabbi.

    This in-between group has elements of the other two groups. They are loyal followers of their Rabbi; and they have enough Fear of G-d to worry the data may be true that points to the fact that their Rabbi is a Rasha.

    But the members of this in-between group either lack the time to investigate the data, feel they are not capable of evaluating the data, have a suspicion that their reputations may take a hit if they abandon a popular Rabbi, are just plain lazy, and/or have some other reason why they are reluctant to sign on to condemning the Rabbi who erred.

    So, they resort to a formalistic approach. If the source of the data is Kosher, they will accept the data as Kosher.

    For this group, the over-the-top non-stop Trump-posting makes them a little uneasy.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.