Sunday, February 12, 2017

Trump makes false claim that he lost New Hampshire because of voter fraud - he provided no evidence

On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, President Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller wasn’t interested in shedding light on reality. If anything, he was running around turning lights off. Inadvertently, though, he did offer one bit of insight into what’s happening at the White House.

Miller was asked by host George Stephanopoulos about a comment Trump made in a meeting with senators last week, where Trump claimed that he had narrowly lost the presidential contest in New Hampshire because of voter fraud. Before we get into the exchange, though, let’s evaluate Trump’s claim.

Trump lost the state by 2,700 votes — a narrow margin but in a small state. It came down to about 0.4 percent of votes cast. Trump reportedly claimed that the difference was because of people being bused in from Massachusetts. He also claimed that former senator Kelly Ayotte (R) lost her race for the same reason.

That’s weird, though, because Ayotte lost only by 1,000 votes. What’s more, Hillary Clinton earned about 6,000 fewer votes in the state than did the Democratic Senate candidate, Maggie Hassan. Trump got about 7,800 fewer votes than Ayotte. So how does that work? People came in to vote just for Hassan but not Clinton? Did some illegal voters come in to vote for Ayotte but not Trump? In the same election, New Hampshirites elected Chris Sununu as governor. He’s a Republican. Were the illegal voters told to cast votes only for Senate and the presidency? This is a complicated operation, to be sure.

Fergus Cullen, who ran the state Republican Party in 2007 and 2008, expressed skepticism about the bused-in-voters claim on Twitter. “I will pay $1000 to 1st person proving even 1 out-of-state person took bus from MA 2 any NH polling place last Election Day,” he wrote. It’s a safe bet; a review of a decade of news reports on Nexis about voter fraud arrests in the state turned up the following:
A man from Manchester, N.H., who said he lived in Salem, N.H., to vote there.
A state representative who tried to cover up the fact that he’d moved out of his district.
The end.
With that background, here is Miller’s defense of Trump’s claim to Stephanopoulos.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me move on, though, to the question of voter fraud, as well. President Trump again this week suggested in a meeting with senators that thousands of illegal voters were bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire and that’s what caused his defeat in the state of New Hampshire, also the defeat of Senator Kelly Ayotte.

That has provoked a response from a member of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, who says, “I call upon the president to immediately share New Hampshire voter fraud evidence so that his allegations may be investigated promptly.”

Here’s Weintraub’s tweet.
Ellen L Weintraub @EllenLWeintraub
I call upon @POTUS to immediately share NH voter-fraud evidence so that his allegations may be investigated promptly …
12:41 AM - 11 Feb 2017
5,979 5,979 Retweets 7,937 7,937 likes

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do have that evidence?

MILLER: I’ve actually, having worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire, I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who’s worked in New Hampshire politics. It’s very real. It’s very serious. This morning, on this show, is not the venue for me to lay out all the evidence.

A nationally televised program seems like a very good place to offer evidence to back up a contentious claim made by a president. It seems, in fact, like this is the reason that Miller is offered the chance to speak at all.

MILLER: But I can tell you this, voter fraud is a serious problem in this country. You have millions of people who are registered in two states or who are dead who are registered to vote. And you have 14 percent of noncitizens, according to academic research, at a minimum, are registered to vote, which is an astonishing statistic.

Three claims here. First, that there are millions of people who are registered in multiple states. Second, that dead people are still registered. Both of those things are true. (Among those registered to vote in two places, by the way, are Trump’s son-in-law, treasury nominee, daughter and press secretary.) But that’s not voter fraud. It’s a sloppy registration system — and indifference from people whose first instincts when relatives die is not to ensure that the registrar of voters is informed.

The third claim is that 14 percent of noncitizens are registered to vote, which is based on an academic analysis released several years ago. It has been subsequently shown to be problematic. As anyone paying attention to the issue should know.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You can’t make a — hold on a second. You just claimed again that there was illegal voting in New Hampshire, people bused in from the state of Massachusetts.

Do you have any evidence to back that up?

MILLER: I’m saying anybody — George, go to New Hampshire. Talk to anybody who has worked in politics there for a long time. Everybody is aware of the problem in New Hampshire with respect to —

If this is a rampant problem that has riddled New Hampshire politics, why has no losing candidate ever sought to overturn the results of an election by citing this horrible problem? If I spent a year running for office and then lost because of widespread illegal activity, my response would probably not be to shrug and say c’est la vie.

STEPHANOPOULOS: I’m asking you as the White House senior — hold on a second. I’m asking you as the White House senior policy adviser. The president made a statement, saying he was the victim of voter fraud, people are being bused from —

MILLER: And the president — the president — the president was.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Do you have any evidence?

MILLER: — issue — if this is an issue that interests you, then we can talk about it more in the future. And we now have — our governance is beginning to get stood up. But we have a Department of Justice and we have more officials.

An issue of voter fraud is something we’re going to be looking at very seriously and very hard. [...]

MILLER: But the reality is, is that we know for a fact, you have massive numbers of noncitizens registered to vote in this country. Nobody disputes that. And many, many highly qualified people, like Kris Kobach, the Kansas secretary of state, have looked deeply into this issue and have confirmed it to be true and have put together evidence.

And I suggest you invite Kris Kobach onto your show and he can walk you through some of the evidence of voter fraud —

STEPHANOPOULOS: You have — you have —

MILLER: — in greater detail.

STEPHANOPOULOS: — just for the record, you have provided absolutely no evidence. [...]


  1. DOE secretary Betsy DeVos was physically blocked and pushed as she tried to enter a public school on Friday. She was also pushed, as she walked away. Her AA security personal was also pushed.

    Not one liberal accused the disgusting protesters for being misogynic for attacking the female education secretary. Not one liberal accused the disgusting protesters of being racist for attacking the African American security personnel. In fact, not one liberal even condemned the pushing and blocking of those they disagree with! But it does get worse:

    Zac Petkanas, a DNC senior adviser and the director of the party’s “Trump war room,” retweeted an article about the protesters and wrote, “#resist.” He also tweeted, “We must protect our public schools from this woman.” Yes, he outright supported their physical behavior.

    It's obvious that liberals are not at all bothered when the protesters that they organize push people, and do a lot worse. All they may say, if pushed, is that they weren't the one to propose it, or something like that. Otherwise they will downplay and, they'll outright try to defend it.

  2. your interpretation of events is astounding - especially your attempt to claim that people are afraid of Trump's paranoid and unsubstantiated claims for voter fraud. Trump has not produced evidence of voter fraud. According to your logic we need to establish a government investigation of things such as flying saucers, satanic abuse rings, Anti Semitic claims that Jews kill Christian children for their blood for matzohs etc etc.

    Not every claim is worth investigating - no matter how much it is believed. There has to be minimal evidence and not just fanatic beliefs.

    To repeat TRUMP HAS NO EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS LIES ABOUT MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL VOTES OR SYSTEMATIC BUSING INTO NEW HAMPSHIRE. Merely repeating something doesn't make it true. Nonsense spouted by the president of the US is still nonsense.

  3. And what about the violence? Can you at least condemn that?

  4. do you really think that I am in favor of violence? Do you think I even approve of it? The assumption that anyone who is critical of Trump is part of a major conspiracy (I.E., LEFTISTS) and that if something that one protester does is not condemned it means that the actions are approved is ABSURD. This automatic lumping of all opponents unless otherwise denied is part of the sickness that Trump has introduced into America.

    When did you stop beating your wife? Don't object that no one has produced any evidence that you have beaten your wife. If you don't protest that means that you approve.

  5. I didn't mean to imply any of that, the same way that being a Trump supporter doesn't mean agreeing with all his outlandish claims of extreme voter fraud, even if I don't protest it. The only reason that I said anything was that you commented on the second half of Honesty's comment (about voter fraud) and totally ignored the point of anti-Trump violence. In my humble opinion, it would have been appropriate, since it was braught up, to have denounced the violence, since you claim to be balanced, and not one sided agains t the President.

  6. I think we need to respect the President's feelings. We respect the feelings of abortion doctors. We respect the feelings of men who want to marry each other. We must respect the feelings of every citizen, including the head of the nation. So if the President feels people were bused in, then let's respect that. Or, if we choose not to respect that, let's be consistent. Let's speak out against all immoral lies. Let's speak out against pro-abortion on demand advocates and their feelings and lies. Let's speak out against those advocating the most grievous of immoral activities. The Trump Presidency is a firewall against the liberals. Sometimes you start a fire to block a fire. Mr. Trump is rebalancing the nation. He is a twister and contorter of truth just like the liberals -- only bigger and better and on the opposite side of the see-saw.

  7. Note the language. "...our public schools...." Our indoctrination centers to shape unsuspecting minds to create un-thinking liberals who will become life long Democrats. Donkey good, elephant bad.

  8. No, But some of us feel that to Prefer the likes of Mrs. Clinton, is extreme leftist. Those of us who hate the leftist agenda, don't deny Trump's shortcomings, but we prefer the package, because it's as Joseph Orlow says "a firewall against the liberals". I can't stress enough the importance of resisting them. The world has gone on downward spiral of leftism in the Obama years, and this leftism has become almost like established doctrine. It needs a very serious surgical procedure to reverse it. And it's worth having all of the difficulties of surgery.

  9. we are not having surgery - it is called mangling the system.

    It is incredible that you are using the example to justify anything and everything that can be done to destroy the system - apparently including self-destruction. Your "I think that if not for Obama" is incredible! I think if it weren't for pink elephants that are living on the far side of the moon it wouldn't have happened. You are holding Trump up as the paragon of virute? He is closes to Torah values?! I don't think we have the same Torah. Yes I am sure you want your children to view Trump and his adulterous relationships as something to emulate?! His cheating of people, his lies, etc etc.

  10. What issues of Jewish identity do these posts address?

  11. Trump does not have a policy of advocating cheating. If he transgresses it's not his policy but his human failing. Obama has a policy to legitimize lgbt in every single speech and condemn anyone who doesn't validate those deviant behaviors.

  12. are you trying to say that Trump is clueless that he is constantly lying and therefore his lying should be ignored while Obama is fully aware of what he does and therefore should be criticized? You have no problem with a person who can't tell truth from lies and that is why he says lies?!

  13. please tell me what you consider issues of Jewish identity and what is not relevant?

  14. I understand that you have political views, and that they are important to you, but you set up this blog to address specific issues that in the Jewish community, and that's what has drawn a substantial numbers of readers.

    BH, there is no shortage of partisan political commentary on the internet, but if you want to add to it, why not set up a separate blog for that, and leave this one to continue to do what it does so well?

  15. Again, Trump's supporters don't contend that he is flawless. We just chose him because he was the best choice, and in order to reverse the extreme leftist movement that has been prevailing under Obama. We are happy of the things he is doing, although he could do it with more finesse. He is a right winger, in many many senses, and so are his policies and actions. He is venturing to do the things that he said during his campaign that he would do.

  16. Harry,

    You are speaking to someone who has already stated a few months ago that they don't believe that the liberal takeover of this country can be halted. Once a person has resigned themselves to that conclusion - for whatever external or internal reason - then, whatever you say will just fly past them.

  17. I think if it weren't for pink elephants that are living on the far side of the moon it wouldn't have happened.

    Wow! Are you really making THAT comparison? Did Obama not fundamentally change the system on this????

    Here are the facts:
    1) In every state that had a vote about gay marriage, the natural definition of marriage was upheld.

    2) During the 2008 election season, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton both went on record saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

    3) As president, Barak Obama brazenly and viciously lobbied to change the laws, to force gay marriage upon the country. Are you forgetting that he threatened the supreme court? Oh, yeah, right - only President Trump is wrong for criticizing low level judges. But as president, Barack Obama was permitted to fight with and threaten the supreme court.
    Anyhow, he pushed for that supreme court ruling, and got it. He then brazenly lit up the White House in rainbow colors.

    4) He went even further. He withheld funding from any educational institution that did not permit boys into girls bathrooms, and girls into boys bathrooms. What a chutzpah these schools had!!

    Well, speaking of pink elephants, I suppose he would support the fact that there are millions of pink elephants in Chicago. How dare anyone disagree and force their view on me!! Such intolerance!! If I feel that way, then you must destroy your privacy - and society's privacy - to accommodate and legitimize certain insanities. Anyhow, the fact is that Barack Obama forced the legitimization of biological boys becoming girls onto us.

    Botom line is, the US is fighting back. And it is a fight that we should be happy is being fought.

    I have unfortunately come not to expect a substantive response.


    Oh, it's cute how "Yehushua" and "Progressive" - who both comment while it is Shabbos in the US - but not in Israel - close in time, with the same attacking and libtard bent, have up-voted your comment. lol

  18. Did you criticize Obama? If so, how many times over eight years?

  19. If they aren't afraid of it, why do they even care?

    If President Trump would claim that there are pink elephants on the moon, would you go through great lengths to call him a liar.

    Anyhow, again, no condemnation on violence.

  20. Didn't critize George Washington either! So therefore you don't think I am allowed to criticize your hero?

  21. Your concept of fighting means having an incompetent president destroy the country?

  22. Trump is not a right winger nor is he a moral person
    He is not honest or ethical
    But he is destroying society and that is what you asked for

  23. And if it can't be halted, then we may not even say ouch? The very right to decry the leftism is part of this fight, and well worth it.

  24. Ah, your definition of destruction is subjective. You do realize that there different definitions of destruction. It would be nice to put an objective side-by-side comparison. Straight out facts on the ground.

    Trump has destroyed America in the following ways:

    The leftists have destroyed America in the following ways:

    The citizens of this country held their nose and voted in the last man standing and chose this over what they perceived as continued destruction that the liberals were wrecking.

  25. What do call destruction. I think there is no greater destruction than the liberal leftism. All of it is תועבת ד' אשר שנא.

  26. Please list, in short, ten ways that President Trump has destroyed society. Thank you.

  27. Barack Obama is not on the Supreme Court, who are the ones who made same-sex marriage law of the land, so I am unsure what your point is.

  28. I said he is destroying society - as anyone who is following Trumps activities should be aware.
    If it is too hard for you to follow the posts that I have been putting up - then I see no reason to summarize them specially for you.

  29. What is there about Trump's undermining the Judiciary Systerm, attacking the credibility of the Intelligence Services, attacking segments of our society and causing divisions and hatred, undermining the faith in democratic elections in America, attacking the credibility of all media and saying they are the enemy, attacking the concept of verifiable facts, science etc etc.

    That of course means nothing to you because by definition only the Left Wingers can destroy society.

  30. That's a mixed bag of beans you listed. The good, the bad and the ugly.

    Causing divisions and hatred has no greater culprit than Obama.

    Undermining the media is an attempt to create a long needed correction in the very partial left slanted reporting.

    Attacking the credibility of the Intelligence Services was wrong.

    Undermining the judiciary system makes him no worse than any Jew who loses a din Torah.

    As far as verifiable science, if you mean global warming, it's dishonest to call that a verifiable truth, and it needs to be called out. He has the bigness to say he is considering the possibility of it, unlike the proponents who totally dishonestly discredit the possibility of another view point.

    As far as segments of our society, it needs a correction. The left has validated everyone, no matter how wicked and evil. They have made it a crime to speak out against sin. They have made it a crime to call Muslim terror by that name. So Trump is pushing far to the other way in an attempt to correct things.

    So there you have it.

  31. A simple way of understanding my viewpoint is that the way Trump is he going he will be impeached. In other words his running of the goverment is so bad - for everyone - that he will be removed from the presidency before his term is up.

    I guess that would make him a martyr in your eyes - instead of incompetent.

  32. That might happen, or maybe not. Time will tell. In connection to our discussion, that prediction of yours is neither here nor there. Our discussion isn't about his skill and competence in this role but rather about his values. Also chances are he'll learn on the job. It seems to me that he's trying to get it right.

  33. Trump doesn't have values - other than what gets him the most money, power and attention

    It would be a good idea of you read a little about his history of dishonesty and incompetence and lack of values in his business dealings and personal life

  34. He puts himself on the line with his innovative ways. He obviously has an opinion of what is the better thing to do, and he's following that in the face of lot's of opposition.

    I have heard some nice things about his acts of kindness, but his business is shrewd. Isn't that the right way?

  35. And this summarizes what's been going on over here as well. There's a world of difference between understanding and acknowledging others opinions while disagreeing with it, and between just saying and thinking that no other logical opinion can even exist. This is why when people write clear explanations, it is completely ignored; instead, accusations of a personality cult and avoda zara is thrown out.

  36. Is his value to get thrown out, or to get it right and to satisfy his base to get another term?

    Impeachment is wishful thinking.

  37. Your point numbered "3" is untrue to the point of fantasy, being practically & politically impossible.

    The one numbered "1", by contrast, is merely straight-up false, factually. See the table in Wikipedia, wherein I count 14 States plus DC that legalized same-sex marriage via vote, either legislative or popularly referended. On the other hand, this site (don't really know what is, but looks legit), cites it at only 11 (8 legislatures plus 3 referenda). Not interested in researching further, but, regardless of the true count, either is more than the zero you seem to want to believe.*

    Don't know the details on "4", as I never followed the bathroom issue, but has the whiff of having been concocted (Breitbart, anyone?), and given the quality of the rest of your points, well, I see little point in researching.
    * The first point above took me all of 10min to debunk with a mere Google search, seeing as this issue of gay marriage, its history, its struggles, etc., is one of the most documented, summarized, gloated over movements in recent history. If these issues are so important to you, is a quarter-hour of fact-checking & research really too much for you? Or do you just swallow the rightwing alarmist swill oblivious? If the latter, please be mindful that Judaism is a religion of stiff-necked questioning, not submissive line-toeing.

  38. no his value is to have power and he simply isn't competent to run the country. No impeachment is a very likely outcome

  39. shrewd is not the name for what he has done in business

  40. Large segments of Torah Jewry were galvanized by Trump's ascension to the Presidency and felt marginalized & under attack by his predecessor in that office. Accordingly, there's been a visible Jewish lean toward this neo-conservative movement since the Tea Party proclaimed its presence in the last few years of Obama. And the more yeshivish the Jewry, the more visible that lean. This is of course made quite curious by the resulting unlikely & coincidental political alignment of those Jews with American nativists -- i.e., their compatriot anti-Semites.

    So when Trump in his person, in his actions, and his Administration all begin conspicuously to look less and less defensible on our religious grounds -- the very grounds these aforementioned Jews cited in favor of just such an Administration -- it becomes the stuff of cognitive dissonance, of rationalization, of hypocrisy, etc. -- which in two respects make it of concern to this blog. First, the psychological aspects of said conflict; second, the political ramifications to American Orthodox Jewry.

    Third, another reason is that it's basically become a study in media. The whole fake-news phenomenon & spirit of conspiracy are matters I've seen this blog muse over with regard to incidents both baaretz & bechutzlaaretz over several years long before Trump's conman antics left the confines of the business world & reality television and went political. So even just on those grounds alone it's in keeping with this blog's eclectic character.

    All that such a mystery?

  41. Can you pleas tell me why so many Torah observant jews felt alienated by Obama? Despite my best efforts, I've not been able to get a coherent answer from Trumpians!

  42. I don't want to get into too much of a political discussion , esp. with Americans - but Trump, in business is extremely shrewd and successful. The problem is that in politics, he is a rookie, as are many of the people he surrounds himself with. It is certainly good for Israel to take advantage of his views on the middle east, as they are more pro Israel than previous Pressies, but it is also a Government in near anarchy.
    Regarding his middos - previous presidents have had their scandals too, but they perhaps knew more on how to run the country.

  43. More like - you love sharing your impeccable and unimpeachable thoughts about current politics, and will shoe-horn references to it into all and every conversation you can. Incredibly boring for everyone else.

  44. Speak for yourself
    You clearly are not everyone else

  45. Um..."more like [that]" than what? Other than my letting slip the word "conman," I see no political opinions in what I wrote above, just a narrative description, either more/less accurate & no way hung on that one label.

    As for boring, well, I wasn't aiming to entertain, but just address a seemingly fair question with a pretty obvious threefold answer. But here's an opinion for you: that assumption you've let slip there speaks volumes about our age; that readers/viewers need entertainment instead of reasoned answers ("bread & circuses", reality television) itself explains the emergence of fake news, partisan media, & Trump to the Presidency.
    How's that? Now I'm guilty. Happy? Bored?

  46. Since he's seen as sympathetic to current postmodern cultural developments and held the highest post of this land during their heyday (and, to be fair, resigned himself to governing by executive order--a political failure on his part), he basically gets blamed for those developments. Not rational, but seems to be the case.

    In other words, and judging by some recent comments on this blog, the culture war being waged by leftwing secular Jewish media gets blamed on, chiddush niflaoh, the President. The reason the homosexuals near you are organizing for transgender recognition & various legal sanctions and succeeding with them? Obama's doing, Obama's fault. Trump will save us, you'll see. Hear how angry he is? Is one of us! Yuge, big league "tremendous"!
    So it goes, I think....

    Of course, it's part-fantasy, part not. To be a politician is to be willing to fit into a box & to read where the culture is headed next. So sure Obama is pro-leftism, ultra-tolerance, etc., though probably not nearly so zealously as is imagined. To complain that Obama is Obama, the Clintons the Clintons, or Trump Trump is to whine over mist being shapeless; the manipulability of some American intelligentsia & gullibility of Jewry, on the other hand, into voting & voicing support--that seems to me to be meat for real complaint.

  47. I have been watching these "progressive" developments in society for a very long time - even as far back as my university studies. What made Obama a chidush niflah?

  48. Are you comparing legislative votes to a referendum? Lie #1

    Name the supposed three States? Ahh. Can't.

    Avoiding and denying Obama's bullying of the supreme court does not reality change. He did it, disgustingly.

  49. I'll take this one: A: What do you have against legislation? Your point had been that it was only the courts. That is wrong. B: The three states are Maine, Maryland, and Washington.

  50. Did you know that you can shorten your long urls with Shortest and receive cash from every click on your shortened links.

  51. Their perception, however mistaken or not, is that with Obama's 2008 victory these leftist culture warriors ascended into the White House and promulgated their agenda onto the rest of society (the supermajority in this case being not Congressional + Executive but "Fourth Estate" + Executive, seeing as it's taken for granted that Hollywood + MSM are long-established coalitioned leftwing front-line armies of anti-religious progressivism). This paranoiac perception is not baseless (and most paranoia isn't, right?); the psychotic aspect of it lies in ignoring all matters factual (like that Obama was in certain ways not really so far left and, in energy policy for example, was humorously referred to on Capitol Hill as "Bush 3", not to mention the now infamous issue of immigration, not to mention as well his weak labor policies) in favor of narratives conspiratorial or tyrannically all-powerful (see, most recently here in a subthread down below, Honesty's insistence that Obama was responsible for the many judicial victories on the part of gay marriage advocates). In other words, it's all a traumatic reaction by a people feeling "under attack" to seeing one of the enemy gain the highest office.

    Last time that happened, of course, was the 1960 election, and JFK was, while in discourse & bearing super-progressive, yes, in policy also really not so much as one would've expected. (He was a young, rich billionaire (by today's standards), after all, so how much of-the-people could he be? A very establishment administration.) My point: It's traumatic because it's rare. 1960 was over a half-century ago. The time before that that a non-Establishment leftist took office was 1912, when media as we know it didn't even really exist, and when times didn't permit deviating too far from Victorian cultural norms. So it's the second time in American history. 'Makes sense' that it'd meet with irrational responses, kivyakhol.

  52. Instead of worrying about the moderator of some random blog condemning violence, how about you worry about the president of the United States, who, when asked about how he plans to address a rise in anti-Semitic incidents in America lately, refuses to even address the issue. In response to those questions, he talked about the size of his Electoral College victory (which, incidentally, is one of the smallest on record), and how he is "the least anti-Semitic person" you will ever meet (as if that is A: true, or B: relevant), and refers to the fact the he has three Jewish grandchildren. Why can't he just say: We are disturbed by this trend and will look into ways to protect the Jewish community? Unfortunately, the answer is too clear: He knows that this would upset a large portion of his base.

  53. BTW: halachically, they are not his grandchildren.

  54. If he were to have a point, their halakhic status would be irrelevant to that point. But once again, having Jewish grandchildren does nothing to dampen the rise of anti-Semitic incidents.

  55. You did not providence of states! Why? Speaking of shameless lies!

  56. We've officially moved into the Twilight Zone. Facts, begone!

    Despite my nagging reluctance to act as an enabler for your pathological laziness, here you are: ME, MD, WA -- as already cited a week ago by Yehoshua (whose answer I specifically cited above), and as is clear from either of the two links I originally sent and referred you to again immediately above. So, for the record, I personally am answering this now for the fifth time. I won't be doing any more work on your behalf, as it clearly is of no help to you.

    So, yes, speaking of shameless lies.... or not; perhaps, as I hedgedly noted in my last Comment, you're just removed from reality through less fault of your own. I have no way of knowing. Whichever it is -- pathological deceptiveness, mental handicap, or just being a troll -- I do not think I can help you further.

  57. You're not going to believe this, but this fella is totally deaf to your reply. Scroll over to find his recent reply to me, accusing me of dodging the question.

  58. Mature adults, or even adolescents, are able to have substantive discussions. Most of what they say or write is substantive. Boneheaded trolls spend most of their time and efforts advancing insults and attacks. It's obvious to every mature person which category you are a part of.

  59. The problem is, he is indeed one sided against the president and against the goals of those who voted him in.

  60. It certainly is obvious. Have you taken the time yet to actually look at the articles he linked to? Or are Maryland, Maine, and Washington not states according to you?

  61. You always manage to miss the point, yet continue to smugly grind it over and over.

    The supreme court acted against the wishes of the majority. The supreme court only did it after they were bullied by the former president himself.

  62. And why one earth would the Supreme Court act in accordance with the democratic majority? You're assuming
    (1) that in their decision-making they even have access to the popular will, which, of course, they can't really know, whereas judicial decisions are based on knowledge;
    (2) that a court, a forum for justice, should care about the popular will, which, a vehicle of desire, in its essence is ill-able to arrive at just judgments; the reality is the opposite, that indeed a court ought care for nothing but the right application of law -- an elite, not crowd-driven process;
    (3) that the majority willed against SSM, which is also pretty demonstrably questionable and for which you ignore all counter-evidence.

    At least your claim has gotten much narrower: Now you're saying Obama "bullied" just the one Supreme Court, which, again, is both practically impossible, ill advised (he's not stupid), & entirely concocted without the least bit of evidence. So while the claim is no more defensible, it is less paranoiacally universal -- no longer 20-some State courts being "bullied" by our executive, but just the life-tenured, highest Justices of the land, over whom said bully has no power whatsoever. What is it you fantasize he did, had some heavies show up at night in their houses with lead pipes & guns?

  63. Nonsense and nonsense. Polls released at the time of the Supreme Court decision showed a majority of people nationally supported it, and the idea of the Supreme Court being "bullied" by the president is beyond stupid.

  64. Which polls? They weren't the same polls that got the election all wrong, we're they? They weren't conducted by the same media organizations, who according to their very own numbers, only 52% of people find them to be trustworthy? Or were they....

    the idea of the Supreme Court being "bullied" by the president is beyond stupid.

    Oh, wait, but Trump's a bad guy because he .... Sorry. I forgot, Trump is different. Anyhow, calling the truth stupid does not fact change.

  65. Lol

    It's delightful watching you grind over your trolling attempts. Good luck

  66. And here is the data for you (from the same Wikipedia article):
    A CNN poll on February 19, 2015 found that 63% of Americans believe gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry, up from 49% in August 2010.[185] In the wake of the Obergefell decision, CNN polling found that 59% of Americans felt the decision was correct.[186]

    A Washington Post/ABC News poll from February–March 2014 found a record high of 59% of Americans approve of same-sex marriage, with only 34% opposed and 7% with no opinion.[187] In May 2013, a Gallup poll showed that 53% of Americans would vote for a law legalizing same-sex marriage in all 50 states.

  67. At this juncture, I can't help but recall some recent words I read to the effect that
    "Mature adults, or even adolescents, are able to have substantive discussions. Most of what they say or write is substantive."
    Oh, Substance, where art thou?

  68. 1: So let me get this straight: You claim, without any evidence, that the majority was against legalization. I claim, with polls backing me up, that the majority was in favor. And your response is that somehow, despite having nothing that support your invented-out-of-thin-air claim, you are more correct, because the polls were off on the election this past fall. I see.

    2: Trump is a bad guy for many reasons. Specifically concerning this issue, he is a bad guy not because he criticized a ruling of the court (which many have done). He is a bad guy because in using terms such as "so-called judge" to describe a federal judge who ruled against him, and saying that another federal judge ruled against him only because he is of Mexican heritage, he is undermining the very authority of federal courts in general, not just disagreeing with a specific decision on its merits.

  69. One line for your #2

  70. I don't engage with trolls. It's delightful watching you trip over yourself in your trolling attempts.

  71. Hey, if "grinding"/"trolling"/whatever is what you term a triple shlugging up & evidently so, well, I shan't begrudge you your unlikely mirth.

    Myself, I can't say your trollish antics give me much delight-- more head-scratching or head-shaking, lekhora. But I'm willing to grant that that may be pleasure of a different, more rarefied sort.
    So to each our own....

    Seriously, though, dude- you've obviously got some pretty deeply-seated issues, some of the byproducts of which are fairly documented at this point in Disqus these blogthreads. Good luck being mesaqein those klippos.

  72. שמשלחה מביתו וחוזרת - שכן מנהג השוטים שאין בושין:

  73. This marei maqom is one of many establishing that to "be shamed" in Rabbinical discourse implies an actual act, the giving of a get --or rather, here, demonstrating that someone has fabricated their facts or can't think straight; mah sh'ein kein merely calling someone "shameful" alone does not them ashamed make.

    Ironic that you see yourself in the role of baal habayis in your Talmudic analogy, a role implying possession of oneself & one's property. For as long as you are unable to marshal factual evidence & constitutionally incapable of admitting fault, you are neither. Take your own advice and become a "mature adult," engaged in substantive discourse of evidence & reasoning. To one without such ability, all Sha"s is as nothing (ch"v).

  74. שמשלחה מביתו וחוזרת - שכן מנהג השוטים שאין בושין:

    Yet again

  75. LOL. Nagging you, am I?
    Will it help if I cry "מאיס עלי"?

  76. How has "leftism" harmed you? Has this "leftism" prevented you from keeping the Torah, so long as you don't harm anybody else? And who are you to judge someone who believes they were born the wrong gender, or who are only sexually attracted to those of the same gender? Have they harmed you? Have those trying to educate you from you society-dividing primitive racial prejudices harmed you? You have paid no price, except to gain more rights, more equality, than if the USA was stuck with the values of hundreds of years ago.

  77. Yet again
    שמשלחה מביתו וחוזרת - שכן מנהג השוטים שאין בושין:

  78. The first time you repeated I took it as a mere joke, but now I am obliged to point out that your repeating this line implies misunderstand of the sugiya. The din of that line is clear that halakhically severence does not work.

  79. Interesting that nobody ever thought of beleiving such craziness until the world validated that craziness. So whoever is that way today, is a product of the new 'rights' and 'equalities' we have been taught by the left. It's the same leftism that desensitized some rabbis to violate The Torah and allow a married woman to live in adultery. It's the same leftism that taught you apikursus to refer to Torah law and values as primitive racial prejudices. Some people would not be bothered no matter what atrocities they see in front of their eyes, as long as they have their food. They've been drained of any sense of morality, so they're fine with all of that. The dog only cares that he has his bone. Others, though, still are bothered to the core by evil. The left says that we may not be bothered by evil, but instead we must respect every crazy and evil idea equally. The left will hopefully not succeed to silence the voice of outcry by a handful of people who still have a heart.

  80. I can't explain why nobody "believed such craziness" before. Perhaps you would like to speak to someone who is LGBT or that way inclined and find out what he feels, and how he feels about people who cavalierly dismiss his feelings and identity. I assume you don't truly believe RSK is a "Leftist", do you? Oh dear... I do take offence at your smear of apikorsus. Torah law and values are not primitive racial prejudices and I never said they were. Where does the Torah advocate hating Blacks, Mexicans, Muslims, Gays, etc? And if you have added to the Torah what it doesn't say... Of course, the Left does not say we shouldn't be bothered by evil, it says precisely we should, which is why we call out racism and bigotry for what it is.

  81. No one has said they hate gays. But I have said that homosexual activity is evil. That is because The Torah calls it an abomination. But you have translated my calling it evil into meaning something about hatred. That's wrong. We are supposed to call it evil because The Torah does. Just as that isn't defined as hatred coming from The Torah, so it isn't defined as hatred coming from people who repeat what The Torah says. The problem is that you would not like us to consider it an abomination, so you call anyone who says so, a hater. That's untrue and unfair. But we should hate the act of evil doing, as it says, Sinu ra. But you would rather validate it by giving it all of that understanding and validation. By your model, evil doing is promoted. Because if we may not call it what it is, then we can't tell people to stop doing it.

  82. So then your beliefs are fundamentally different to the far-Right you otherwise support, because they hate, and you don't. In that element, though you disagree with liberals because you have the Torah and they don't, you share with them the ideology of non-hatred.

    Of course, you weren't earlier complaining only about gays, so I will accept your non-response regarding everything else as an agreement.

  83. The point is about what type of trolls have no shame, and therefore will persist on their continuous trolling even after they've been sent on their merry little way over and over again.

  84. 1) Just to clarify, the Torah only forbids male homosexual activity, and chazal forbade female.

    2) The Moreh Nevuchim explains that this Torah prohibition together with all Torah prohibitions regarding intercourse with women and others is "to inculcate the lesson that we ought to limit sexual intercourse altogether, hold it in contempt, and only desire it very rarely" - for procreation.

  85. How about you try responding to the substance of his comments for a change? You wrote (falsely) that the Supreme Court ruling went against public opinion, as all states that held votes were against it. He directed you to a chart indicating that fourteen states approved it based on votes, with three of those states passing it by referendum. When faced with the direct evidence of your falsity, you start with the references to fools and trolls. Why not just admit that you were wrong and move on?

  86. Just to clarify, your comment 1 is irrelevant. It seems to try to minimize something because it's only derabanan. That is totally wrong. Your comment 2 is totally irrelevant. Explanations are good for the purposes they serve, but when someone tries to use them to minimize the severity of Torah law, or try to say that doing an avaira isn't really much different then doing the thing which mutar, that is clearly going against The Torah. The unalienable truth is that The Torah law, be it de'oraissa or derabanan, says that homosexual activity is forbidden. The Torah calls it an abomination. End of story.

  87. First of all, how do you know that anyone hates? Maybe they're just fighting the evil without hatred. Second of all, we are only human. By seeing someone doing something that is evil, it's hard to be so refined that we can see it a evil, as we must, and at the same time not have an iota of hatred. (I, of course, am so refined but many others aren't ;)) So don't bunch me with the left, because the root of their tolerance is in the fact that they don't mind the evil. They are just as hateful when it comes to their agendas, only their agendas are often not justified. Let me clarify, I don't only mean gays. I mean the entire LGBTQ, Thanks for asking. All of those are against The Torah, and some of it is crazy beyond. I don't hate Muslims etc at all, and have some people who I work with in business who are Muslim. I'm just a bit afraid, because you never know when someone will come out as a jihadist.

  88. If you'd misquoted a pasuq, as a Torah Jew I'd feel obliged to correct you. Or even if youd mis-stated on of the 13 Iqqarim. Well, the same is the case when peshat in sheb'al peh is misconstrued:

    In the case you cite, it's not as if she could re-invalidate successive attempts at severence ("משלחה" refers to giving a get ), or repeatedly reaffirm by her same actions that he's stuck with her. In other words it's NOT some spectrum of degrees of in-divorcibility, as it were, that she could show herself to be yet further along. She's either divorcible like every other or falls into this special category and is not. The first time she returns, it becomes halakhically clear, so the claim goes, that get doesn't work on her, and he remains responsible for her (married to her, that is), and even if he should send her away with a second attempted severence and she that time remained gone, the severence would not be 'this time' any better than the first. In short, there is no "yet again" predicable on this case Rashi explains, as you sought to employ it twice.

    (Of course, that my above anonymous exposure of you as a fraud should have lead you implicitly to analogize us as married is something Freud would surely pick up & run with. But that really is another matter I'd prefer to let lie.)

    Guess my own Talmudic reply was quipped into a vacuum. Pity. I assure it was at least as oh-so-clever as yours.

  89. 1) Unless one is a karaite or a christian, one must understand the Torah through the words of shas, gaonim and the rishonim. I simply presented the facts.
    2) Not all homosexual acts are called an abomination, since the Torah did not forbid them, that is fact, and people have to know this.
    3) Torah calls remarrying your ex-wife an abomination too, also eating pig-meat or other non-kosher animals are an abomination.
    4) It is very important to know the reason (where possible) behind the laws of the Torah, for this our "wisdom in the eyes of the nations".

    My point is not to matir what the Torah forbids but to suggest that one views it as what it really is and not from the perspective of cultural bias that has nothing to do with Torah hashkafa.

    Do you disagree with the Rambam that the reason homosexuality is forbidden is becuase all sexual activity (even permitted ones) for pleasure alone keeps a man from his full potential as a human being? The Rambam's approach is not only logical, but presents a common standard for everyone, eliminating (or minimizing) any trace of bias against people on the basis of their sexual orientation, while at the same time not matir what is assur.

  90. Why do you think the RW (like the KK and neo-Nazi's) don't hate, but leftists do? Besides, I would never bunch you with the left, I wouldn't be so hard on myself. I was making the point that you are throwing around left and right as if left = bad, right = good, without any understanding of the concepts and ideologies involved.

  91. 1) So where in Shas etc is homosexual activity permitted?
    2) ת"כ פרשת אחרי - מנין שלא היה אומה מן האומות שהתעיבו מעשיהם יותר מן המצריים שנאמר כמעשה ארץ מצרים לא תעשו ומה היו עושים האיש נושא איש והאשה לאשה
    And this is the source that The Rambam quotes for the issur of lesbian activity, so it is an abomination.
    3) So what? Arayos are of the 7 Noahide mitzvos, and eating pig isn't
    4) You are using the reasons to try to minimize the validity of the mitzvos

  92. The Rambam in Moreh gives certain explanations, but these are not definitive reasons why the Mitzvot were given, but he is speaking to a particular audience who were philosophically inclined. We are told elsewhere, I think in Chazal, that we don't always know the reasons and we must keep mitzvot regardless.
    I'm not sure that the rationale Rambam gives (assuming you have presented it accurately) is a very good one. Only certain people would get "pleasure" from homosexual acts, but that doesnt mean it is not issur for someone who does not have such inclinations.

    Ironically, some of the Rambam's explanations in the Guide veer from Chazal's understanding, and actually give strength to (or attempt to take away from) the Karaite or pashtan view. A good example is what he says about ayin tachat ayin, in this case he takes it literally rather than how Chazal have transmitted it. I don't know if the Tzedukim took this law literally, but as far as i am aware , they didn't practice eye for an eye when the Sadducees held power, eg in the Sanhedrin.

  93. I do not see the connection between your reply and my two previous comments. Please show me how I am "minimizing" Mitzvoth? Adultery is also a sin and capital offence for benei noach! And it is certainly more common than homosexuality. Isn't adultery an "abomination"? Why the disproportionate focus on this Torah prohibition? Why not direct your energy on eliminating the more common transgression of adultery first?

  94. Harry, here are links to sections in the moreh nevuchim relevant to our conversation.

  95. The moreh nevuchim has made you more navuch than ever. You don't know how to approach the information given there. The rambam in the Yad Hachazaka, is what he holds lehalacha. I have brought what he says in hilchos issurei biah.

  96. There is no disproportionate focus. When I talk about apples you'll complain why I don't talk about oranges, "what's the matter you don't like oranges?" and when I speak about oranges ....

    Yes adultery is an abomination. I don't want to discuss it. I talking about something else right now.

  97. I heard a Rabbi say that moreh nevuchim was for the "wise" son in the haggada who honestly wants to know the mitzvoth so he can fulfill them properly. So the moreh is intended to teach us how to ask the right questions about the Torah, Torah observance and reality, and to provide the analytical tools to find reasonable answers to those questions.

    I think the Rambam's approach is effective for anyone who wants to improve his observance or wants to help others who want to improve their observance.

    Here is an interesting article on the four sons (not connected to the moreh).

    Do you have a source for the Rambam's view on "ayin tachat ayin"?

  98. It is in Moreh Nevuchim 3:41
    check out this pdf by Rabbi Danzig

    He is giving a reason for the Mitzvot, and not psak halacha (since it contradicts what he writes in the Yad!).

    There we have a fascinating problem with the Guide , where he gives a pshat (Karaite) understanding of the mitzvot) on a classical machloket between Chazal and the Tsedukim. One explanation is he was trying to mekareiv people under the influence of the Karaites (which he successfully did in Egypt).
    Remember, he is not making psak halacha, but is thinking like Ibn Ezra, i.e. learning the internal logic of the Torah. In those days it was very fashionable to have debates between the Karaites and the Rabbis, and to learn both ways. Ibn Ezra is perhaps the greatest expositor of this method.

  99. Found this excellent summary of the issue by a Mizrachi rav in Tiberias, one R' Avraham Danzig (whom I can only assume is a descendant &/or namesake of the Chayei Adam):

    Bottom line (according to that short article) is this: Rambam in the Moreh is giving a viable peshat purely local to the Scriptural text, not a halakhic peshat, such as he had already provided, obviously, in MT.

    Pursuant to Eddie's point, the author implies that the Rambam's Moreh may be for a general readership beyond merely those who are frum. I'm not sure how that is to square with the Rambam's only statement at the beginning of his extraordinary (and unforgettable!) haqdama, wherein he states,
    The object of this treatise is to enlighten a religious man who has been trained to believe in the truth of our holy [Torah], who conscientiously fulfils his moral and religious duties, and at the same time has been successful in his philosophical studies. Human reason has attracted him to abide within its sphere; and he finds it difficult to accept as correct the teaching based on the literal interpretation of the [pesuqim], and especially that which he himself or others derived from those homonymous, metaphorical, or hybrid expressions [in them]. Hence he is lost in perplexity and anxiety.
    But I guess that point & this passage need not be such a steira; a timeless & unique work like the Moreh, after all, can certainly admit of both a primary readership and a more general readership besides....

  100. Eddie, I agree with you that in the moreh the Rambam is not paskening halacha, but teaching the "spirit" of the Law, what fulfillment of the Torah is intended to achieve on a personal and communal level. I do not agree that the Rambam was agreeing with the Karaites, he simply was explainging the "spirit" of the wording of the Torah statement - a person who causes loss of a limb to another actually deserves to lose that limb. And he is explicit there that he is not explaining it according to the halacha.


please use either your real name or a pseudonym.