Twitter Debate: Did Trump Just Call Jews “Disloyal?”

Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, President Trump made a controversial claim: “I think any Jewish people that vote for a Democrat, I think it shows either a total lack of knowledge or great disloyalty.” Here’s what Twitter has to say:

So, wait. Now dual loyalty is expected????

Or is he saying Jewish Democrats are disloyal to America? Or to their faith?

Every interpretation is bad.

The notion of provisional belonging–that Jews aren’t really American or French or whatever if they don’t do xx–is an idea with a hideous history. N.B. Some 75% of American Jews vote Democrat.

American Jews can no longer ignore the fact that neither of the parties is willing to stand up for us against their own party members. We have been turned into a tool to be used to bash the other side.

Is Jill Biden Right About Joe’s Electability?

Campaigning in New Hampshire, Jill Biden made an impassioned—though somewhat unusual—case for her husband. “You may like another candidate better, but you have to look at who is going to win,” she said. Was this a gaffe from the wife of the election’s main gaffe-maker? Or is it simply a good reason to vote for Joe?

It’s not terribly complicated to understand why electability matters more to Democratic voters in 2020. It’s Donald Trump. That’s it… If ever electability was going to be the deciding factor in choosing a Democratic nominee, it’s this moment.

Jill Biden has a message for voters reluctant to get behind her husband: settle or face another four years of hell… Biden’s remarks on Monday beg the question: who would she be backing if Trump were out of the equation?

It’s not clear that if Biden wins the nomination it will be because a majority of voters in Democratic primaries rose above principle in the cause of ousting President Trump. Biden may prove to be an electable nominee because a decisive number of primary voters are attracted to either his personal qualities or his positions…

Why Are Conservatives Upset About the 1619 Project?

In the year 1619, enslaved men and women from Africa were first brought to America. 400 years later, the New York Times is launching its “1619 project,” stating that “on the 400th anniversary of this fateful moment, it is finally time to tell our story truthfully.” The project is meant to be an honest portrayal of American history. Many conservatives see it as a distortion.

It is certainly true that an American nation existed prior to the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and that slavery was its great sin, with permutations still felt today. But to pretend that racism is the essence of America and constituted one of the country’s founding principles is an odious and reductive lie.

So the Times has two big plans. One would be big enough: to focus on the universe of racism accusations that increasingly surround the president at a time when he just happens to be running for reelection. But the other is even bigger: to “reframe” American history in accordance with the values of Times editors. It’s an extraordinarily ambitious undertaking for people in what used to be known more simply as the news business.

For right-wing nationalists, there’s little room for the recognition of fundamental evil, of an original sin, in the founding myth of the nation… Those who engage with history more seriously than politicians understand that recognition of a national darkness need not be an impediment to national pride.

Can CEOs Win Over the Democrats?

Elizabeth Warren wants CEOs to be beholden to their stakeholders—anyone who is affected by their business—instead of just their shareholders. At the Business Roundtable, an elite group of business leaders from America’s biggest companies, are saying that they agree.

…these CEOs are fooling themselves if they think this new rhetoric will buy off Ms. Warren and the socialist left. It may even embolden them by implying that corporate rules that require a focus on achieving value for shareholders are somehow morally insufficient. The Roundtable CEOs may be selling Ms. Warren the political rope to hang them.

Nothing could prove Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren more correct about their acerbic view of American business than by this new Business Roundtable effort turning out to be mere wind… But I have confidence. Business is the foundation of American society — and CEOs will surely prove it very soon by ceasing to devour it from the inside.

If you find yourself underwhelmed with confidence at the sudden turning of this particular worm, you are in good company. The idea that a bunch of hyper-wealthy corporate CEOs are prepared to throw sand in the gears of a system that has served them so well is harder to swallow than a shard of hot glass.

Should New York’s Yeshivas Focus More on Secular Studies?

New York’s Yeshivas are under pressure from the state to increase their focus on secular studies. Along with Catholic schools and elite private schools, the Yeshivas are fighting back against the initiative, which they argue would interfere with their freedom to teach their students as they see fit.

This controversial decision is part of a coordinated attack on yeshivas that holds them responsible for all that ails a troubled public school system — a system that often performs less well than the Jewish schools themselves.

Contrary to the claims of critics, the state is not trying to shape the curricula of private schools. They are setting minimum learning requirements below which a school is clearly failing to educate their students. Indeed, the state’s regulations explicitly instruct school districts to respect the traditions and sensibilities of private schools, especially religious ones.

I have also been asked by many why we can’t cooperate with the state’s efforts to reform yeshiva education. The answer is this: We won’t get a fair hearing from the state. The state is motivated by a desire to take control of private school curricula. Its ultimate goal is to force us to adopt a secular, progressive curriculum.

Is Facebook Listening to Your Conversations?

Many people believe that Facebook “listens” to users through their devices to better target them with advertisements. Others say this is just a conspiracy theory. A recent report from Bloomberg, however, states that Facebook hired third-party contractors to review audio messages from Facebook’s Messenger App (supposedly to improve audio transcriptions). Does this mean that the “conspiracy theories” are true?

No, your phone is not secretly listening to you… The simple fact is that your devices gather so much data about you, your whereabouts, your contacts, your browsing activities and the activities of your contacts that advertisers can predict what you’re saying without even actually listening in.

Facebook has “time and time again shown little regard for users’ privacy,” says security researcher Sean Wright. “While I understand there could be a legitimate need to have a human review the recordings from time to time, this should be made absolutely explicit to the user.” It’s therefore a major concern that seemingly private Facebook Messenger conversations were listened to by a human being.

The company denies it’s listening, up to and including its CEO stating as much to Congress, and the belief is undeterred.

Simply put: The reason so many people believe that Facebook is listening to them is because people don’t trust Facebook. Though Instagram hasn’t had as many public dust-ups, it’s guilty by proxy — Facebook owns Instagram, which puts the two platforms are similarly shaky footing in the trust department.

Today’s Hot Issues

Twitter Debate: Did Trump Just Call Jews “Disloyal?” Is Jill Biden Right About Joe’s Electability? Why Are Conservatives Upset About the 1619 Project? Can CEOs Win Over the Democrats? Should New York’s Yeshivas Focus More on Secular Studies? Is Facebook Listening to Your Conversations?