401
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
401 points (96.1% liked)
politics
18601 readers
3911 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, apparently he spent a decade running an orthodox organization and taken millions from New Jersey public schools (where he was also in a high ranking education position) to buy bullshit "religious science" science textbooks and textbooks on how to learn Yiddish (but no other language) because public schools can "loan" books to private religious schools...
Also using taxpayer money to pay for private school bussing...
And while he pushed for an end to vaccination exemptions on religious grounds for public schools, wanted an exemption for private...
NJs public schools are in shambles, and this asshat is taking as much funding as he can to give it to religious indoctrination centers and coming up with reasons to increase their enrollment.
And that's not even getting into all the other shit that comes up in 2 seconds of an Internet search
It's just someone else pulling a Sinema. "Vote Blue no matter who" is better than a Republican being elected. But it just leads to shit like this where the general is one Republican with an R by their name. Against one Republican who suddenly has a D next to their name....
This dude is a rightwing religious extremist who realized just putting a D by his name is enough in our political system
lakewood twp has a majority orthodox jewish population. he probably would have won a seat regardless of the label attached to his name on the ballot.
That might be true.
The point is everyone else that isn't a far right religious extremist had to pick between one of those and a Republican
That's the issue.
The two party system means most voters don't have a real choice, which depresses turnout, and will lead to Republicans winning elections, or best case a Dem that doesn't actually support the basics of the Dem platform like "separation of church and state" which is a very low bar.
elections there are different. TWO seats per district, two votes per ballot, from a list of all candidates. there were other choices with D and R labels attached.
I think his win clearly demonstrates that putting a D in front is actually insufficient. Had the label's effect been much greater than his actual beliefs, then his label would have resulted in a loss.
But, enough of the constituents of that district didn't seem vote for a label, they voted for his actual positions instead.
A genuine dem campaigning hard on progressive policies and messaging probably would have lost.
What?
Seriously I can't follow any of your logic.
How do you know he wasn't elected because the only other alternative?
And if he didn't run on progressive policies like you said, what made him better than the Republican?
How do you know he wasn't elected because people liked his politics?
I guess it's simple enough to get to the bottom of, did he campaign on democratic party platforms and messaging? Has he called for abortion rights, gun control and greater business regulation?
I compared him to Sinema...
I thought it was obvious that some politicians lie. So even if he claimed progressive policies, that doesn't mean he's not just lying. I highly doubt many Republicans who switch to D just before running in an election honestly had a sudden change of heart.
But you're saying if he supported that stuff he'd have lost, now youre saying he did support that stuff...
I'm sorry, maybe it's me but I can't understand what point you're trying to make here. I'm not seeing any logical consistency
And I don't think that's going to be as easy to change as a letter by a republicans name.
But maybe you should take a minute to Google a politician before blindly supporting them like you just did? That's pretty much the blind support based only on the letter by someone's name I was just complaining about
I did not say he supported that stuff, I asked if he had. My sentence ended in a question mark, because it was an honest question.
If he had called for abortion rights, for instance, then that is calling for abortion rights. It's publicly supporting that position in the public space.
Do recall, my original thesis is "we will see how he votes." I have not expressed any support or opposition to him, merely caution and a wish to observe.