This is, of course, true as a matter of general principle.
He has a new pinned tweet that shows how delusional. Berner thinking is:
"Is it really necessary to spend next 6 months pointing out that "criticism of Clinton" ≠ "support for Trump"? Just get a different tactic."
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/726092025133670401
It's not a tactic, it's a fact. Red State's Ben Howe is able to understand this but, of course, Emoprog Glenn Greenwald doesn't.
Last week after Trump sowed up the nomination, Howe pointed out that it's self-canceling to say both #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary.
The truth is, the election offers a binary choice. The next President will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you consider Trump as many do to be the most unqualified candidate of a major party in history then how do you do anything but vote for Hillary?
At the very least Greenwald is willing to gamble on a Trump Presidency. If he spends the next 6 months mostly criticizing Hillary Clinton, then that is at least a marginal contribution towards a President Trump.
As the choice is Hillary or Trump, what is Greenwald's preference? It seems it doesn't matter to him.
But if you're a woman who has seen a violent crackdown on Planned Parenthood and the right to choose and other women's health services, if you're a Muslim with children listening to talk of a Muslim database and a Muslim ban, if you're a Latino hearing talk of banning 11 million people, that's not a risk you're willing to take.
If you're a black person with the rollback in the Voting Rights Act, you can't take that chance.
These disgruntled Berners are simply ignorant in their own privilege.
I'm waiting for Greenwald, HA Goodman, or Camille Paglia to become Trump surrogates.
Slate is in the bag for Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/another-salon-writer-endorses-donald.html
He has a new pinned tweet that shows how delusional. Berner thinking is:
"Is it really necessary to spend next 6 months pointing out that "criticism of Clinton" ≠ "support for Trump"? Just get a different tactic."
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/726092025133670401
It's not a tactic, it's a fact. Red State's Ben Howe is able to understand this but, of course, Emoprog Glenn Greenwald doesn't.
Last week after Trump sowed up the nomination, Howe pointed out that it's self-canceling to say both #NeverTrump and #NeverHillary.
The truth is, the election offers a binary choice. The next President will be either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. If you consider Trump as many do to be the most unqualified candidate of a major party in history then how do you do anything but vote for Hillary?
At the very least Greenwald is willing to gamble on a Trump Presidency. If he spends the next 6 months mostly criticizing Hillary Clinton, then that is at least a marginal contribution towards a President Trump.
As the choice is Hillary or Trump, what is Greenwald's preference? It seems it doesn't matter to him.
But if you're a woman who has seen a violent crackdown on Planned Parenthood and the right to choose and other women's health services, if you're a Muslim with children listening to talk of a Muslim database and a Muslim ban, if you're a Latino hearing talk of banning 11 million people, that's not a risk you're willing to take.
If you're a black person with the rollback in the Voting Rights Act, you can't take that chance.
These disgruntled Berners are simply ignorant in their own privilege.
I'm waiting for Greenwald, HA Goodman, or Camille Paglia to become Trump surrogates.
Slate is in the bag for Trump.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/another-salon-writer-endorses-donald.html
I don't know much about Glenn Greenwald, but I rarely hear anything good from 2nd hand sources. He's not popular with people like Sam Harris, Dave Rubin, or a host of other liberal but anti-"regressive" folks.
ReplyDeleteIn honor of mother's day, I'm going to give you a link to a mother duck & ducklings I saw on my walk today. You're welcome.
P.J. O'Rourke does get it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/05/09/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton/
You may never have been a P.J. O'Rourke fan, but I was, and still am to some extent: a rarity for a conservative, his writing is actually funny. Probably because he's more a libertarian than a conservative. Well, no, there are plenty of humorless libertarians as well... I think it's because he's not much of an ideologue. He can see the humor on his side as well as the other. Anyway, I love this quote of his about Trump:
Of Donald Trump, he warned: “They’ve got this button, you know? It’s in a briefcase. He’s gonna find it.”
Which is reminiscent of one of my favorite quotes from P.J. (I think from his book Parliament of Whores):
"The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it."
Looks like the writer of that RedSate article about P.J.'s endorsement (Leon H. Wolf) gets it too:
Delete"For whatever Hillary’s faults, she’s never suggested on national TV that Ted Cruz’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination because of something she read in the National Enquirer, which means that she’s got a huge leg up on Trump in the “being sane” department, not to mention the “being able to tell the difference between weapons-grade batsh*t insanity and the truth” department, both of which are kind of hugely important for the person who is going to be in charge of the world’s most powerful military."
Erickson brings up a good point here (one I didn't think about): Bush and Graham have "broken their pledge" to support the Republican nominee:
ReplyDeletehttp://theresurgent.com/spare-me-your-outrage-over-broken-pledges/
Well, not officially... that won't be the case till Trump is the nominee (assuming they don't change their minds). So I guess their pledges aren't worth shit. I'm glad Erickson goes on a tear about breaking marriage vows as well: further isolating him in the "purity" camp.
But don't get me wrong: I'm GLAD that Erickson is going on about this, and that Graham and Bush (his establishment, RINO, squish, moderate, compromiser allies) are doing what they're doing. I'm just glad that with every turn of the screw, resentments between conservatives build a little bit more.
I hope Rush (for instance) has at least 50% of conservatives hating him by the time this is all over: or thinking of him as a double-talking squish who's afraid to take a definitive stand. Maybe Mark Levin will call him out, and that Limbaugh gets defensive about it. What would be perfect is Limbaugh saying something about Levin being a Jew. Anything to build resentment and further the scorched Earth GOP civil war.
The more fragmented the better. I'd like the #NeverTrump movement itself break into camps, pushing different 3rd party candidates.
It is a little reminiscent of the French Revolution with the "purity" and "no-compromise" revolution eating it's own: sending first the Royalists, then the Moderates, then the Girodins, then the Dantonists, then the Hébertists, and finally the Jacobin's themselves to the guillotine.
DeleteNo surprise here, but an official endorsement for Hillary from Sumner:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31683#comment-722777
I'm about to write a post on it. I had predicted this in his previous piece but of course he gives me no credit. LOL
ReplyDelete