“To the Jewish cancellation mob attacking me because a different Austin Franco doesn't want to work for them, please understand, I'm a GOOD goy!” https://t.co/K9anRx1H1Z pic.twitter.com/r1kRFKt48O

— Daniel Concannon (@TooWhiteToTweet) June 16, 2026

Mothra said:

---

Sorry, but it's not. You won't find a single definition as narrow as the one you posit. "Jew" is not exclusively a religious label. If it were, then secular Jews, atheist Jews, and people of Jewish ancestry who practice no religion would not still be recognized - legally, historically, or socially - as Jews. But they are. That alone disproves your premise. You're trying to force a category that doesn't fit into a box you invented.

---

The "atheist" or "secular" Jews you refer to are like "Jack Mormons", but this has nothing to do with their racial identity. This has to do with their former or familial religious affiliation. Such people exist around every religious tradition, and Judaism hardly has a monopoly on it.

Even the New Testament identifies Jew as a religious label, separate from one's ethnicity.

"And having found a certain Jew, by name Aquila, from Pontos by nation."
Acts 18:2.

And before you try and say that Pontos was only a matter of nationality, Pontos was part of the Roman Empire, divided as it were between the Roman provinces of Galatia and Cappadocia at the time Acts was written by Saint Paul. Later in the verse we are told that he and his wife were in Corinth because Claudius expelled all Jews (that is to say those who practiced Judaism) from Rome later in that verse. We also know from historical sources that at the very least Priscilla was a Roman citizen, from a prominent Roman family.

This double identification occurs all the time in the Bible, identifiying both the theos and ethnos of the individual in question. "And a certain Jew, by name Apollos, an Alexandrian by Birth..." (Acts 18:24). If what you say is correct, and Jew was a racial identity, there would be no need for the scriptures to do this.

You are the one who is trying to expand the term Jew to include a racial identity so that you can continue to make race based charges of antisemitism. I've explained to you how Jews belong to many races: semitic, ashkenaz, ethopian. Heck there are even dravidian malabar Jews in India.

Now the New Testament has directly refuted your position.

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

This alone defeats your analogy to "Jack Mormons" or lapsed adherents of other religions. In Christianity or Mormonism, if you stop believing, you are no longer meaningfully part of the group. In Judaism, by contrast, you can cease belief entirely and still be Jewish, because Jewish identity is not reducible to belief, it is tied to peoplehood and ancestry. It is why your buddies, such as Barbearian and his ilk, argue incessantly that media moguls like Larry and David Ellison are Jewish, despite the fact that neither adhere to the Jewish religion.

More broadly, your argument ignores the consensus of the modern worldview, wherein Jews are not merely a religion but an ethnoreligious people, incorporating ancestry, culture, and shared historical identity alongside religious practice. That is why Jewish identity persists even among secular or atheist Jews, and why conversion is typically understood not just as adopting beliefs but as joining a people. It is also why Jewish law can exclude someone with a Jewish father but include someone with a Jewish mother regardless of belief; because the defining mechanism is descent, not doctrine.

I do get your attempt to provide a very narrow albeit intellectually dishonest definition in order to excuse the obvious hatred and loathing of Jews by this young man, and your neo-nazi buddies on this board. It's what you've done consistently on these boards. You find an excuse for their hatred, instead of adhering to your purported Christian principles and calling out such behavior. It's what Jew-haters do.

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Your error here is that accepting an assertion that religion is a matter of inheritence. As far as "jewish identity following the mother", it will take about 30 seconds for Jews to expel a Jew who accepts Jesus as Christ from this supposed shared racial identity proving that it is in fact a religious identity. You can't be expelled from a race.

You've lost this. Admit it and move on.

Its almost as if she has inside info. pic.twitter.com/PmShXqQ0bc

— ThePatrioticBlonde™🇺🇸 (@ImBreckWorsham) June 17, 2026

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Your error here is that accepting an assertion that religion is a matter of inheritence. As far as "jewish identity following the mother", it will take about 30 seconds for Jews to expel a Jew who accepts Jesus as Christ from this supposed shared racial identity proving that it is in fact a religious identity. You can't be expelled from a race.

You've lost this. Admit it and move on.

---

Once again, you're treating "Jew" as if it were purely a voluntary religious label, when even the most basic modern definitions - across multiple major dictionaries - explicitly reject that reduction.

For example, Merriam-Webster defines a Jew not only as someone who practices Judaism, but also as "a person belonging to a continuation through descent…of the ancient Jewish people."

Cambridge likewise includes both religion and ancestry, defining a Jew as either someone who practices Judaism or someone "related by birth to the ancient people of Israel."

Oxford is even clearer, describing a Jew as a "member of a people and cultural community with origins in the ancient Hebrews," alongside religious adherence. In other words, every, modern standard reference point treats Jewish identity as simultaneously ethnic, cultural, and religious - not exclusively one or the other.

That's exactly the point you've purposely ignored and failed to address: modern usage does not treat "Jew" as analogous to something like "Catholic" or "Baptist." It's an ethnoreligious identity, which is why people can be secular Jews, atheist Jews, or even Jews who adopt other beliefs and still be regarded - socially, historically, or ethnically - as Jews.

Again, I do get why you've attempt to narrow the definition so absurdly that it completely ignores both ancient Jewish texts on the subject, as well as generally-accepted modern usage. It's convenient for your argument, allowing you to defend the hatred those of your ilk regularly express toward an entire people group.

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

This alone defeats your analogy to "Jack Mormons" or lapsed adherents of other religions. In Christianity or Mormonism, if you stop believing, you are no longer meaningfully part of the group. In Judaism, by contrast, you can cease belief entirely and still be Jewish, because Jewish identity is not reducible to belief, it is tied to peoplehood and ancestry. It is why your buddies, such as Barbearian and his ilk, argue incessantly that media moguls like Larry and David Ellison are Jewish, despite the fact that neither adhere to the Jewish religion.

More broadly, your argument ignores the consensus of the modern worldview, wherein Jews are not merely a religion but an ethnoreligious people, incorporating ancestry, culture, and shared historical identity alongside religious practice. That is why Jewish identity persists even among secular or atheist Jews, and why conversion is typically understood not just as adopting beliefs but as joining a people. It is also why Jewish law can exclude someone with a Jewish father but include someone with a Jewish mother regardless of belief; because the defining mechanism is descent, not doctrine.

I do get your attempt to provide a very narrow albeit intellectually dishonest definition in order to excuse the obvious hatred and loathing of Jews by this young man, and your neo-nazi buddies on this board. It's what you've done consistently on these boards. You find an excuse for their hatred, instead of adhering to your purported Christian principles and calling out such behavior. It's what Jew-haters do.

---

1) Larry Elliison is the largest private donor to the IDF...

Israel's Biggest US Donor Now Owns CBS

its not that I argue Larry or David Ellision are jewish you numbskull. They proudly proclaim it themselves!

2) You always find an excuse for jews being hateful and doing pernicious and evil ****, instead of adhering to your purported Christian principles and calling out such behavior (show me one post on this board where you called out the IDF or West Bank Settlers). Its what sacrilegious psychopaths (Christian Zionists) who replaced Jesus with jews do.

Mothra said:

---

This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Apparently the jewish obsession with eugenics make the nazis look cosmopolitan by comparison. Of course most honest interlocutors already understand that nazis and zionist jews are just tigers of different stripes and are the exact same.

So by your strict definition, is Ivanka Trump a jew? Are Jared Kushner's kids jewish?

Wouldnt that make most modern jews a bunch of larpers? I doubt there is a single jew on earth can trace an uninterrupted maternal lineage back to Abraham... especially after the Romans drove them to near extinction.

It kinda destroys your narrative that God still has some type of covenant with them when the people no longer exist!

And if anyone can just convert to Judaism and the suddenly become a Jewish mother despite their DNA remaining the exact same, that just proves Reality correct that it is a religious identity and not tied to an "ethnoreligious" identity.

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Your error here is that accepting an assertion that religion is a matter of inheritence. As far as "jewish identity following the mother", it will take about 30 seconds for Jews to expel a Jew who accepts Jesus as Christ from this supposed shared racial identity proving that it is in fact a religious identity. You can't be expelled from a race.

You've lost this. Admit it and move on.

---

Once again, you're treating "Jew" as if it were purely a voluntary religious label, when even the most basic modern definitions - across multiple major dictionaries - explicitly reject that reduction.

For example, Merriam-Webster defines a Jew not only as someone who practices Judaism, but also as "a person belonging to a continuation through descent…of the ancient Jewish people."

Cambridge likewise includes both religion and ancestry, defining a Jew as either someone who practices Judaism or someone "related by birth to the ancient people of Israel."

Oxford is even clearer, describing a Jew as a "member of a people and cultural community with origins in the ancient Hebrews," alongside religious adherence. In other words, every, modern standard reference point treats Jewish identity as simultaneously ethnic, cultural, and religious - not exclusively one or the other.

That's exactly the point you've purposely ignored and failed to address: modern usage does not treat "Jew" as analogous to something like "Catholic" or "Baptist." It's an ethnoreligious identity, which is why people can be secular Jews, atheist Jews, or even Jews who adopt other beliefs and still be regarded - socially, historically, or ethnically - as Jews.

Again, I do get why you've attempt to narrow the definition so absurdly that it completely ignores both ancient Jewish texts on the subject, as well as generally-accepted modern usage. It's convenient for your argument, allowing you to defend the hatred those of your ilk regularly express toward an entire people group.

---

You cannot be excommunicated from a race. You can be excommunicated from a religion.

That is the litmus test. To accept the dictionary definition of this is wrong because as I've pointed out in two posts there are Jews today who have absolutely zero genealogical relation to the ancient practitioners of Judaism. That is to say the dictionary is wrong.

By the way, that woke Oxford dictionary you're citing defines gender as "as the state of being male or female, typically focusing on social and cultural roles, behaviors, and identities rather than biological sex."

Woke Webster is even worse, defining gender as "person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female."

So yes, I'm going to toss their false definition of Jew on the ash heap of history.

A Florida Senator from the Republican Party -- the Free Speech Party -- is demanding that a musician's concert be cancelled and shut down because he dislikes views the musician has previously expressed. https://t.co/ZfCgcKLwOK

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) June 16, 2026

🚨 ADL CEO WARNS OF EXPLODING ANTISEMITISM

Jonathan Greenblatt warns that Jews are being “falsely blamed” for dragging the United States into a war with Iran.

He says such accusations are fueling antisemitism and pushing it out of control. pic.twitter.com/LzP7DDVlOB

— Parody Jeff (@Parodyjeffx) June 17, 2026

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

See Greenwald wants to promote antisemitism?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

This alone defeats your analogy to "Jack Mormons" or lapsed adherents of other religions. In Christianity or Mormonism, if you stop believing, you are no longer meaningfully part of the group. In Judaism, by contrast, you can cease belief entirely and still be Jewish, because Jewish identity is not reducible to belief, it is tied to peoplehood and ancestry. It is why your buddies, such as Barbearian and his ilk, argue incessantly that media moguls like Larry and David Ellison are Jewish, despite the fact that neither adhere to the Jewish religion.

More broadly, your argument ignores the consensus of the modern worldview, wherein Jews are not merely a religion but an ethnoreligious people, incorporating ancestry, culture, and shared historical identity alongside religious practice. That is why Jewish identity persists even among secular or atheist Jews, and why conversion is typically understood not just as adopting beliefs but as joining a people. It is also why Jewish law can exclude someone with a Jewish father but include someone with a Jewish mother regardless of belief; because the defining mechanism is descent, not doctrine.

I do get your attempt to provide a very narrow albeit intellectually dishonest definition in order to excuse the obvious hatred and loathing of Jews by this young man, and your neo-nazi buddies on this board. It's what you've done consistently on these boards. You find an excuse for their hatred, instead of adhering to your purported Christian principles and calling out such behavior. It's what Jew-haters do.

---

1) Larry Elliison is the largest private donor to the IDF...

Israel's Biggest US Donor Now Owns CBS

its not that I argue Larry or David Ellision are jewish you numbskull. They proudly proclaim it themselves!

2) You always find an excuse for jews being hateful and doing pernicious and evil ****, instead of adhering to your purported Christian principles and calling out such behavior (show me one post on this board where you called out the IDF or West Bank Settlers). Its what sacrilegious psychopaths (Christian Zionists) who replaced Jesus with jews do.

---

1) So in your opinion, a guy who is ethnically Jewish and claims to be Jewish is Jewish, even if he does not adhere to Judaism? If so, it looks like you and I agree, and realitybear disagrees with us.

2) I've never made any excuse for Jews being hateful or doing pernicious things. Many of them are indeed evil, and need Christ - just like the rest of humanity. What I push back against with your posts is you trying to paint a whole race/ethnicity as bad and evil based on the individual examples you point out. If Anglos were judged as a race by their worst actors - the way you do with the Jews - we wouldn't come across in a very positive light either. Anglos have by far the most serial killers and mass murderers. Does that mean we are all evil? Of course not.

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Apparently the jewish obsession with eugenics make the nazis look cosmopolitan by comparison. Of course most honest interlocutors already understand that nazis and zionist jews are just tigers of different stripes and are the exact same.

So by your strict definition, is Ivanka Trump a jew? Are Jared Kushner's kids jewish?

Wouldnt that make most modern jews a bunch of larpers? I doubt there is a single jew on earth can trace an uninterrupted maternal lineage back to Abraham... especially after the Romans drove them to near extinction.

It kinda destroys your narrative that God still has some type of covenant with them when the people no longer exist!

---

I do not disagree that there are evil Jews, per my post above. As I suggested above, we all need Jesus, even the Jews. But Jews today aren't killing 6 million people. They aren't beheading people or burning them alive.

We do know of countries and religions that do.

As for the "narrative," it's not mine, but God's. Romans 11:2 is clear that "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." In Romans 11:25, Paul makes clear that "a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in," meaning of course that there is still a plan for the Jews.

And in 11:26, Paul says, "And in this way all Israel will be saved." He goes on to say that "this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins." In other words, one day His covenant will be fulfilled for Israel through the blood of Jesus Christ.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Again, your argument rests on a false premise: that "Jew" is merely a religious label, analogous to "Mormon" or "Christian." That is not how Jewish identity has ever functioned, either in Jewish law, historical practice, or the modern world. Under classical Jewish law (halakha), a person is Jewish if born to a Jewish mother, regardless of belief or observance. This rule is not modern, but is instead grounded in authoritative rabbinic sources such as Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 and Talmud Kiddushin 68b, and later codified in the Shulchan Aruch, all of which establish that a child's status follows the mother, not the father. As a result, even an atheist born to a Jewish mother remains Jewish, while someone with a Jewish father but nonJewish mother is not considered Jewish without conversion. That is plainly a rule of lineage and descent, not one of faith.

---

Your error here is that accepting an assertion that religion is a matter of inheritence. As far as "jewish identity following the mother", it will take about 30 seconds for Jews to expel a Jew who accepts Jesus as Christ from this supposed shared racial identity proving that it is in fact a religious identity. You can't be expelled from a race.

You've lost this. Admit it and move on.

---

Once again, you're treating "Jew" as if it were purely a voluntary religious label, when even the most basic modern definitions - across multiple major dictionaries - explicitly reject that reduction.

For example, Merriam-Webster defines a Jew not only as someone who practices Judaism, but also as "a person belonging to a continuation through descent…of the ancient Jewish people."

Cambridge likewise includes both religion and ancestry, defining a Jew as either someone who practices Judaism or someone "related by birth to the ancient people of Israel."

Oxford is even clearer, describing a Jew as a "member of a people and cultural community with origins in the ancient Hebrews," alongside religious adherence. In other words, every, modern standard reference point treats Jewish identity as simultaneously ethnic, cultural, and religious - not exclusively one or the other.

That's exactly the point you've purposely ignored and failed to address: modern usage does not treat "Jew" as analogous to something like "Catholic" or "Baptist." It's an ethnoreligious identity, which is why people can be secular Jews, atheist Jews, or even Jews who adopt other beliefs and still be regarded - socially, historically, or ethnically - as Jews.

Again, I do get why you've attempt to narrow the definition so absurdly that it completely ignores both ancient Jewish texts on the subject, as well as generally-accepted modern usage. It's convenient for your argument, allowing you to defend the hatred those of your ilk regularly express toward an entire people group.

---

You cannot be excommunicated from a race. You can be excommunicated from a religion.

That is the litmus test. To accept the dictionary definition of this is wrong because as I've pointed out in two posts there are Jews today who have absolutely zero genealogical relation to the ancient practitioners of Judaism. That is to say the dictionary is wrong.

By the way, that woke Oxford dictionary you're citing defines gender as "as the state of being male or female, typically focusing on social and cultural roles, behaviors, and identities rather than biological sex."

Woke Webster is even worse, defining gender as "person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female."

So yes, I'm going to toss their false definition of Jew on the ash heap of history.

---

In other words, you are going to ignore the overwhelming weight of evidence to the contrary - whether that be ancient Jewish law and texts, all scholarly writings, and modern day understanding - and go with your narrow definition.

Like I said, I get it.

On the subject of Semites, just to be clear, you allege that Semites are a race or ethnicity?

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

The_barBEARian said:

---

And if anyone can just convert to Judaism and the suddenly become a Jewish mother despite their DNA remaining the exact same, that just proves Reality correct that it is a religious identity and not tied to an "ethnoreligious" identity.

---

Again, it depends what you mean by "Jew," a word with multiple connotations, as reality well knows. He's just too intellectually dishonest and prideful to admit it.

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

We are in complete agreement on this.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

True... whereas Rubio is a Ted Cruz type career politician who has always worked for Israel and his Jewish donors over the interests of the United States. Rubio is consistent, in that he has never indicated he would ever buck Israel on anything and they will have his complete obedience if elected President.

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

The_barBEARian said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

True... whereas Rubio is a Ted Cruz type career politician who has always worked for Israel and his Jewish donors over the interests of the United States. Rubio is consistent, in that he has never indicated he would ever buck Israel on anything and they will have his complete obedience if elected President.

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

---

I'm with you man, one is a total chameleon, the other is a career DC-swamp creature. We're going to need a good wildcard in 2028

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And if anyone can just convert to Judaism and the suddenly become a Jewish mother despite their DNA remaining the exact same, that just proves Reality correct that it is a religious identity and not tied to an "ethnoreligious" identity.

---

Again, it depends what you mean by "Jew," a word with multiple connotations, as reality well knows. He's just too intellectually dishonest and prideful to admit it.

---

Kinda like how jews will claim to be "white" when its convenient but revert to being racial minorities whenever it becomes inconvenient?

The_barBEARian said:

---

Mothra said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

And if anyone can just convert to Judaism and the suddenly become a Jewish mother despite their DNA remaining the exact same, that just proves Reality correct that it is a religious identity and not tied to an "ethnoreligious" identity.

---

Again, it depends what you mean by "Jew," a word with multiple connotations, as reality well knows. He's just too intellectually dishonest and prideful to admit it.

---

Kinda like how jews will claim to be "white" when its convenient but revert to being racial minorities whenever it becomes inconvenient?

---

OK?

Powerful: The Patriots' rookies visited the Stand Up to Jewish Hate Command Center to learn how to fight antisemitism.

Robert Kraft has donated over $100 million to the cause.

Every NFL team needs to take notes.

What a special moment captured 🥹❤️
pic.twitter.com/wLGby2cVKS

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) June 18, 2026

boognish_bear said:

---

Powerful: The Patriots' rookies visited the Stand Up to Jewish Hate Command Center to learn how to fight antisemitism.

Robert Kraft has donated over $100 million to the cause.

Every NFL team needs to take notes.

What a special moment captured 🥹❤️
pic.twitter.com/wLGby2cVKS

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) June 18, 2026

---

I remember the #endjewishhate campaign from years ago, that was before everyone hated Israel.

Not sure why they do this stuff, they're not doing themselves any favors.

boognish_bear said:

---

Powerful: The Patriots' rookies visited the Stand Up to Jewish Hate Command Center to learn how to fight antisemitism.

Robert Kraft has donated over $100 million to the cause.

Every NFL team needs to take notes.

What a special moment captured 🥹❤️
pic.twitter.com/wLGby2cVKS

— Dov Kleiman (@NFL_DovKleiman) June 18, 2026

---

It looks like the underground lair of a Bond villian... they live track you, catalog your online activity, and invade your privacy because you had the audacity to say Israel should consider killing less children.

Mothra said:

---

On the subject of Semites, just to be clear, you allege that Semites are a race or ethnicity?

---

Semites are a race, and can be identified based on phenotype and lineage.

That is why the charge of anti-semitism is a charge of racism.

Furthermore, all a Jew has to do to get kicked out of the Jewish "race" is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

If Jews were a race, you couldn't get excommunicated from it.

And that is why criticism of or opposition to either Israel, Judaism, or Jews does not constitute anti-semitism.

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

On the subject of Semites, just to be clear, you allege that Semites are a race or ethnicity?

---

Semites are a race, and can be identified based on phenotype and lineage.

That is why the charge of anti-semitism is a charge of racism.

Furthermore, all a Jew has to do to get kicked out of the Jewish "race" is accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.

If Jews were a race, you couldn't get excommunicated from it.

And that is why criticism of or opposition to either Israel, Judaism, or Jews does not constitute anti-semitism.

---

Thanks for the response. So, you allege Semites are an actual race. As someone who graduated our alma mater with a minor in biology, that is a fascinating position to me. Let me ask a few more questions:

1) What exact criteria define a Semitic race? Language? Genetics? Culture? Appearance?

2) Can you give a clear, scientific definition of what makes someone Semitic as a race? Even better would be a link to any scientific treatise supporting this position.

3) Anyone who has taken genetics understands that each race shares distinct genetic markers, which is what geneticists use to categorize races. Can you tell me what genetic markers define all 'Semites,' and how are they different from their non-Semitic neighbors?

4) Races also have specific physical traits which would identify them. Can you tell me what specific physical traits identify a Semite? And how do you distinguish those from neighboring populations? And along this line, can you explain why people from Ethiopia, Yemen, and Israel - who all speak or spoke Semitic languages - look so different if they're the same race?

5) Do you think all speakers of Indo-European languages (like English, Hindi, and Russian) are a single race too? I would guess so, based on your criteria

6) Under your definition, Ethiopian Jews and European Jews are the same race. Correct?

As for the last sentence, gotcha. So it's more appropriate to say you hate Jews than hate Semites, in your book.

The_barBEARian said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

---

LOL. Yeah, a wallflower who couldn't even win his own district is somehow going to win a general election.

You guys crack me up.

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

True... whereas Rubio is a Ted Cruz type career politician who has always worked for Israel and his Jewish donors over the interests of the United States. Rubio is consistent, in that he has never indicated he would ever buck Israel on anything and they will have his complete obedience if elected President.

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

---

I'm with you man, one is a total chameleon, the other is a career DC-swamp creature. We're going to need a good wildcard in 2028

---

Just curious: what is a DC swamp creature, and how is Rubio one? He's been in office around the same length of time as Massie.

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

True... whereas Rubio is a Ted Cruz type career politician who has always worked for Israel and his Jewish donors over the interests of the United States. Rubio is consistent, in that he has never indicated he would ever buck Israel on anything and they will have his complete obedience if elected President.

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

---

I'm with you man, one is a total chameleon, the other is a career DC-swamp creature. We're going to need a good wildcard in 2028

---

Just curious: what is a DC swamp creature, and how is Rubio one? He's been in office around the same length of time as Massie.

---

Career politician, opportunist. No real beliefs, just seeking power.

Marco Rubio is a career politician. Thomas Massie was an engineer/entrepreneur.

Laura Loomer calls for censorship on X because exposing AIPAC is now considered an "incitement of violence."

Loomer says anyone who reposts the Track AIPAC account should be permanently banned.

"Twitter should ban this account and ban people who repost it."

Unhinged behavior. pic.twitter.com/FSR97X7ve2

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) June 19, 2026

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

The_barBEARian said:

---

BigGameBaylorBear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

boognish_bear said:

---

JD going to a well-known antisemitic show tells you everything you need to know about him.
pic.twitter.com/w6SyHsXUb5

— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) June 17, 2026

---

The guy is trying to appeal to a certain audience. Seems like he's trying a reset at this point. He knows Rubio is clearly ahead of him, and is trying to pivot.

---

JD Vance is a chameleon, he's constantly changing things about himself to appeal to certain groups. I don't trust him as far as I can throw him and I hope others from our camp feel the same.

---

True... whereas Rubio is a Ted Cruz type career politician who has always worked for Israel and his Jewish donors over the interests of the United States. Rubio is consistent, in that he has never indicated he would ever buck Israel on anything and they will have his complete obedience if elected President.

This is why I am hoping Massie will run... Rubio and Vance will split the establishment (Israel First) vote.

---

I'm with you man, one is a total chameleon, the other is a career DC-swamp creature. We're going to need a good wildcard in 2028

---

Just curious: what is a DC swamp creature, and how is Rubio one? He's been in office around the same length of time as Massie.

---

Career politician, opportunist. No real beliefs, just seeking power.

Marco Rubio is a career politician. Thomas Massie was an engineer/entrepreneur.

---

Rubio worked for several private firms for more than 12 years before running for office. So he did have experience in the private sector.

When you say he has no real beliefs but is just seeking power, what evidence do you have of that position?