As I said in my last post, it's not about what people say or think their subjective intentions are, it's the objective effects of their actions.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/no-dems-should-not-axe-debbie-wasserman.html
Josh Marshall puts it well:
"The relevant point it's not about being right. It's not about anyone's feelings. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. She won fair and square. The only relevant issue is putting her in the oval office rather than Donald Trump."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate-young-turks-223636#ixzz49riT6ltO
Sounds like what the Communists said in 1933: Hitler's' an outsider and so are we. Screw the Establishment Social Democrats.
By the way, here is another example of what I call objectively helping elect Hitler 2.0 even while subjectively claiming to be 'merely advising Hillary for her own good.'
Josh Marshall puts it well:
"The relevant point it's not about being right. It's not about anyone's feelings. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. She won fair and square. The only relevant issue is putting her in the oval office rather than Donald Trump."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-interesting--9
At this point then anything anyone who does anything to either question her legitimacy as the Democratic party's nominee or to weaken her as a general election candidate is objectively speaking on the side of Donald Trump of making it more rather than less likely he's the next President.
“They’re outsiders. We’re outsiders. They both complain about the establishment. We’re against the establishment,” he explained. “There is no better place for two anti-establishment figures on the right and the left to debate than The Young Turks. Our whole bread and butter is fighting against the establishment.”
At this point then anything anyone who does anything to either question her legitimacy as the Democratic party's nominee or to weaken her as a general election candidate is objectively speaking on the side of Donald Trump of making it more rather than less likely he's the next President.
“They’re outsiders. We’re outsiders. They both complain about the establishment. We’re against the establishment,” he explained. “There is no better place for two anti-establishment figures on the right and the left to debate than The Young Turks. Our whole bread and butter is fighting against the establishment.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-debate-young-turks-223636#ixzz49riT6ltO
Sounds like what the Communists said in 1933: Hitler's' an outsider and so are we. Screw the Establishment Social Democrats.
By the way, here is another example of what I call objectively helping elect Hitler 2.0 even while subjectively claiming to be 'merely advising Hillary for her own good.'
"How Hillary Loses."
"Donald Trump can actually win if Clinton makes these four mistakes. Spoiler alert: She’s already making all of them."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924#ixzz49rm2dcxF
Whether David Bernstein realizes it or not, he is actually helping not Hillary with his piece but Hitler 2.0.
The main impact of his piece is that it goes towards a larger meme that Hillary is a weak candidate who is so weak that she can't even beat Hitler 2.0. Which then goes to the Bernie meme that he can beat Hitler 2.0.
Which only makes it that much harder to unite the party.
I'm sorry. Many will quibble but at the end of the day we have a binary choice in November. Either Hillary or Hitler 2.0.
Bernstein's post makes a Hitler 2.0 Presidency more likely as he's contributing to a larger meme that 'Hillary is weak and not legitimate.'
Josh Marshall:
"It is truly difficult for me to imagine that a Trump v Sanders debate is really going to happen. But it is an amazingly terrible idea for anyone who cares about preventing Trump from being the next President. Indeed, does anyone alive believe this helps elect a Democratic president? And if not, what is the rationale? Perhaps it's a wash. Sideshows in May probably don't have that much effect. But it certainly does not help."
"It is only a spectacle by which both candidates, Trump and Sanders, can indulge their tacitly-agreed common interest in sidelining and diminishing Hillary Clinton, who of course will be the nominee. I don't want to speculate about Sanders' motives, other than that it is probably a good way to elevate himself into the appearance of an ersatz Democratic standard-bearer and to get media attention which has slackened as most of the attention has moved toward the general election. That would be perfectly understandable if we didn't know for a certainty that he is not going to be the nominee and that this would be bad for the person who is. Remember: President Trump."
"I think there's a very good chance it would descend into a Hillary-bashing fest. Indeed, how could it not? That would obviously be Trump's overriding interest and aim. And it would be at best awkward for Sanders to be in the position of aggressively defending Clinton."
"Great theater and spectacle. It would be great fun to watch - if we didn't have a campaign going on in which the fight to keep Donald Trump out of the White House depends entirely on how much Hillary Clinton can unify Democratic support behind her candidacy. Like I said, I really, really doubt this will happen. In addition to everything else, it would probably give Trump the ability to skim more money from a charity event."
"If it does happen, it would really, really make me question what Sanders' motives or simply what he is thinking. Do we want a President Trump or not?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/really--23
Maybe Bernie's attitude is that of the Commies in 1933: screw the Social Fascists.
But obviously taking a Hitler 2.0 Presidency off the table is not his first priority.
P.S. I just got into an interesting dispute with RealClearPolitics writer David Byler on Twitter who had this silly post today asking if Hillary can win without super delegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/27/can_clinton_clinch_nomination_without_superdelegates_130685.html
Of course, she doesn't have to and neither did Obama. But this, of course, is part of the larger meme that somehow her nomination is illegitimate.
Byler got pretty peevish:
"I'm not going to sit here and be an anti-media punching bag. If/when I get data I'll cover this. Until then talk to a media journo"
https://twitter.com/davidbylerRCP/status/736205331131420672
I'm sure he''d be saying the same exact thing in 1933 as well.
The fact is that it's easy to get data: just look at the front page of Real Clear Politics or Politico and you can see how many more negative Hillary stories there are than negative Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-real-asymmetric-campaign-is-medias.html
You don't have to go to some fancy think tank just simply count the headlines.
I'm sure he will be fine when Hitler 2.0 cracks down on journalists as he's already promised he will do.
Byler's whine that he can only worry about himself-when he himself is saying false things like that there is something wrong if she uses the SDs towards her win-will be cold comfort if we do get a President Trump.
"Donald Trump can actually win if Clinton makes these four mistakes. Spoiler alert: She’s already making all of them."
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/2016-election-hillary-clinton-campaign-loses-defeated-donald-trump-213924#ixzz49rm2dcxF
Whether David Bernstein realizes it or not, he is actually helping not Hillary with his piece but Hitler 2.0.
The main impact of his piece is that it goes towards a larger meme that Hillary is a weak candidate who is so weak that she can't even beat Hitler 2.0. Which then goes to the Bernie meme that he can beat Hitler 2.0.
Which only makes it that much harder to unite the party.
I'm sorry. Many will quibble but at the end of the day we have a binary choice in November. Either Hillary or Hitler 2.0.
Bernstein's post makes a Hitler 2.0 Presidency more likely as he's contributing to a larger meme that 'Hillary is weak and not legitimate.'
Josh Marshall:
"It is truly difficult for me to imagine that a Trump v Sanders debate is really going to happen. But it is an amazingly terrible idea for anyone who cares about preventing Trump from being the next President. Indeed, does anyone alive believe this helps elect a Democratic president? And if not, what is the rationale? Perhaps it's a wash. Sideshows in May probably don't have that much effect. But it certainly does not help."
"It is only a spectacle by which both candidates, Trump and Sanders, can indulge their tacitly-agreed common interest in sidelining and diminishing Hillary Clinton, who of course will be the nominee. I don't want to speculate about Sanders' motives, other than that it is probably a good way to elevate himself into the appearance of an ersatz Democratic standard-bearer and to get media attention which has slackened as most of the attention has moved toward the general election. That would be perfectly understandable if we didn't know for a certainty that he is not going to be the nominee and that this would be bad for the person who is. Remember: President Trump."
"I think there's a very good chance it would descend into a Hillary-bashing fest. Indeed, how could it not? That would obviously be Trump's overriding interest and aim. And it would be at best awkward for Sanders to be in the position of aggressively defending Clinton."
"Great theater and spectacle. It would be great fun to watch - if we didn't have a campaign going on in which the fight to keep Donald Trump out of the White House depends entirely on how much Hillary Clinton can unify Democratic support behind her candidacy. Like I said, I really, really doubt this will happen. In addition to everything else, it would probably give Trump the ability to skim more money from a charity event."
"If it does happen, it would really, really make me question what Sanders' motives or simply what he is thinking. Do we want a President Trump or not?"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/really--23
Maybe Bernie's attitude is that of the Commies in 1933: screw the Social Fascists.
But obviously taking a Hitler 2.0 Presidency off the table is not his first priority.
P.S. I just got into an interesting dispute with RealClearPolitics writer David Byler on Twitter who had this silly post today asking if Hillary can win without super delegates.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/05/27/can_clinton_clinch_nomination_without_superdelegates_130685.html
Of course, she doesn't have to and neither did Obama. But this, of course, is part of the larger meme that somehow her nomination is illegitimate.
Byler got pretty peevish:
"I'm not going to sit here and be an anti-media punching bag. If/when I get data I'll cover this. Until then talk to a media journo"
https://twitter.com/davidbylerRCP/status/736205331131420672
I'm sure he''d be saying the same exact thing in 1933 as well.
The fact is that it's easy to get data: just look at the front page of Real Clear Politics or Politico and you can see how many more negative Hillary stories there are than negative Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-real-asymmetric-campaign-is-medias.html
You don't have to go to some fancy think tank just simply count the headlines.
I'm sure he will be fine when Hitler 2.0 cracks down on journalists as he's already promised he will do.
Byler's whine that he can only worry about himself-when he himself is saying false things like that there is something wrong if she uses the SDs towards her win-will be cold comfort if we do get a President Trump.
Mike, I agree with you, but I think you'll find most all Berners will eventually come around. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my guess. But like you say, this moral equivalence between Hillary's email and Trump's history is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteChris Matthews last night thought a Bernie vs Trump debate would be stupid for Trump to do. He imagined that Bernie would destroy him. He didn't mention any mutual HRC hate fest between them, though it could go that way to. I'm not sure what I think. But it's uncertain enough that it's probably best avoided.
BTW, Bernie is in my neighborhood today I think. I think he's speaking at our city college. (Sbcc).. The same place I shook hands with Obama in 2007.
Now here's a test for you Mike: suppose HRC comes down with some debilitating illness and has to drop out, but gives her blessing to Bernie before she does. Would you vote for Bernie or Hitler 2.0?
Personally, I think I could honestly say I'd vote for any candidate there's ever been rather than Trump, with the possible (just possible) exceptions of Cruz and Carson. Thus I'd vote Wallace and Nixon and Andrew Jackson before Trump.
DeleteIndeed. He and Wallace have some similarities-Wallace also hated protesters was anti black and had a VP who wanted to use nuclear weapons- but Trump is probably even worse as at least Wallace was an actual politician with experience and probably had some level of appreciation for democratic norms.
Delete... and I might even come around on Cruz and Carson before I'd go to Trump. I think there's abundant evidence that Cruz is heavily influenced by the "Christian dominionist" movement (a true successor to the Nazi party perhaps?) but Cruz himself (despite his unlikable character, and questionable ties) seems stable and intelligent at least. I think you could make an argument for Cruz. Perhaps him being unlikable actually would compel me to choose him over Trump... there's not likely to be a Cruz cult of personality.
DeleteThe only argument for Carson is that he's actually mostly a nice guy, and is even tempered. I could see that. I think he's a whackadoodle, and I put Trump's sense of self preservation above Carson's... but then again, Carson did demonstrate some business sense in turning his campaign into a book tour... so perhaps there's a streak of non-insane self preservation under the whackadoodle exterior.
So yes, it's likely Trump is pretty much at the bottom of the barrel for me, even with Cruz and Carson in the mix.
Now if we're talking *all US politicians* I think there are some worse choices in the GOP right now other than Trump. Louie Gohmert comes to mind. Sarah Palin. Recent congresswoman Michele Bachmann too. The GOP has an embarrassment of riches in this regard. Plus folks like David Duke. And then media types: Phil Robertson, Glenn Beck, Alex Jones, David Horowitz, Bryan Fischer, Ted Nugent... the list goes on and on. But there were Nazis worse than Hitler too, so that's not surprising.
Still, I'd trust throwing a dart at the phone book over Trump. Even an Oklahoma phone book.
A random dart over a phone book would likely give us a better shot than Trump. AGree
DeleteWait... Bachmann was a presidential candidate wasn't she?... shoot: Bachmann or Trump?... Wow, that's a tough choice. I think Trump's ignorance rivals that of Bachmann, but I suspect he's got at least twice as many functioning brain cells. Bachmann is not quite as whackadoodle as Carson, but close. Wow..., all in all I might go for Trump over Bachmann. But then again, she's pretty unlikable ... so she has that going for her. Tough choice!
DeleteHm. You mean Stalin 2.0 or Hilter 2.0? LOL
ReplyDeleteLike Marshall said, a Trump-Sanders debate might not have a huge impact either way. But why take the chance?
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that it makes it look like Bernie is the legitimate Dem standard bearer.
It contributes the the narrative that somehow her nomination is not legitimate.
I agree with the "don't take a chance" idea, but it could demonstrate to Bernie supporters just how unthinkable Trump really is (one of Matthews points). But again, too risky, so I'm against it.
DeleteTrue. You're right it could have the positive effect that Berners will come to see Trump as the real enemy.
ReplyDeleteBut we agree it's too risky