Are they carnival barkers, or auctioneers?!
OK, I’ve got you a Baptist, a Methodist, two Catholics and a Jehovah’s Witness – do JWs count as Christians? And I could get you a first-refusal on three Mormons – well, I know they don’t count, so, let’s say, six for the price of three.
If the Mormons are from Salt Lake City, I might want to keep them. 
I’m not PC: I believe people should respect the Jews because of their great merits as a people, not simply because it’s the nice thing. You wouldn’t be fired in my book, I’d just for myself engage you.
[QUOTE=SlackerInc]
If I could trade white Christian voters for Jewish ones, I’d do that all day.
[/QUOTE]
Or you and other progressives could trade Muslim votes for Jewish votes.
Regarding us Jewish voters **Slacker **is mostly right.
New York? Never in question.
California has a moderate population (2%) but also not in play.
The only states with any significant Jewish population that are potentially of swingable importance are Florida (3.4%, mostly retirees), Pennsylvania (2.1%) and maybe Nevada (1.8%, mostly in Las Vegas). Colorado is 1.4%, Ohio gets down to only 1.1% and Virginia 1%. And yup, even major swings in the margin of those percents are unlikely to be of too much import for the votes alone.
Then again, Jews tend to actually vote, frequently turning out 80 to 90%, compared to 60% or less for many other demographics. So that amplifies the impact some.
And Jews are over-represented as political activists. When push comes to shove having people who are willing to work and organize the get out the vote work: staff the phone banks, ring the door bells, give the rides, organize the outreach … also results in more impact than less than 2% of the population “should” have.
Jews provide basically no help in winning rural districts … few Jews live there … and Democrats already dominate urban America. But almost half of all Jews live in suburbs and suburbs are probably the key demographic battleground.
And trying to bring this hijack to the subject of the thread I think that you’d find Jews among the most disgusted by the GOP rhetoric on Syrian refugees, and most upset if Democratic leadership tried to triangulate on it.
Some survey results from September.
Note what is not in that important issue group? Lockstep support of Israel. Which does not mean that they don’t care about Israel.
For a large proportion of American Jews mindless support of whatever Israel proposes is not the ask … and some sense of social justice is.
I do have to admit … I am shocked that Trump got 10%.
Did anyone notice that Hillary proposed pretty much my exact idea at the debate last weekend? A few weeks back, I went around and pushed the idea not only here and Facebook but Daily Kos and a number of other comments sections. I never saw any columnist or pundit propose the idea, so now I’m seriously wondering if someone in her campaign saw my proposal and sent it up the pipeline. How cool would that be? At the very least, it shows I think like they do in Clintonland, which many progressives would consider anathema but I am all for:
It makes a virtue of necessity, in that widows and orphans pretty much dominate the refugee ranks. Being because the men in their lives are dead, or have been recruited for one side or another, often willingly.
It also helps that the President hurt himself with his unpresidential snark again, saying that Republicans were afraid of “widows and orphans”. Which shifted the conversation to, “Hey, let’s let in the widows and orphans, we can all agree on that!”
No, you advocated women and children only. Not that her plan is much better. She’s in dangerous Trump territory now.
If she doesn’t clarify and walk this back a bit soon, and there’s a Republican that doesn’t push bigoted like this, I seriously am considering voting for one. And, if not, I may not vote at all.
We might as well throw in the towel if both sides of our leadership are bigoted cunts. I know a lot of you don’t believe in prayer, but it would be more useful than voting.
That’s how Democrats have always played the game. Be slightly less bigoted than the Republicans, but not so liberal that you alienate the electorate.
Oh right–that’s radically different, never mind. :rolleyes:
Men of fighting age should be fighting for their country. They belong in Syria.
Men of fighting age who have been separated from their families may not fight on the side you prefer.
(By the way–you’re a young guy, aren’t you? Why haven’t you enlisted? Even if we’re not going to have many more “boots on the ground” immediately, there are places overseas. (Does Basic have WiFi?))
So you’re implying that a lot of those young men would fight for ISIS.
Separating families is not a good way to win hearts & minds.
But they are wavering on the knife’s edge, and if we don’t treat them just right they could go over to the dark side.
Sounds like the kind of guys we need here in the U.S.! :dubious:
Uh, guys? “Widows and orphans”? The men are…not to put too fine a point on it…dead.
The Blood Libel needs an update. That’s not gentile-juice in the matzoh, it’s something . . . more whiter and powderier.
Let me guess- you also think the Jews should have fought harder against the Nazis?
There is no Fall of Mosul in the history of the Jews in Nazi Germany. There was no Jewish military that outnumbered the Wehrmacht 15-to-1 yet abandoned their civilians to the Nazis as they fled.