The transitive property works only if something is something, not if it is merely called something. Vance can be (really) worse than Trump without being (really) worse than Hitler. Unless you insist that Trump is, in fact, equivalent to or worse than Hitler. Now maybe you can find someone somewhere who really thinks that. In a country of 300-odd million people, some very odd indeed, there is bound to be somebody, but you'll have to look very hard and won't find very much.
When people talk about whether Harris is "qualified" to be President, I have to ask: "If that's your concern, the answer is Donald Trump?"
Now, compared to Johnny Unbeatable, she comes up short, but Johnny Unbeatable is fiction. Is any member of, say, Joe Biden's cabinet clearly better qualified and electable. (I love Janet Yellen, but come on...) There may well be governors or senators who see a President in the mirror every morning, and may even be very good, but was there any conceivable realistic process that would have thrown up somebody else on short notice without tearing the Party to pieces? Any actual candidate will always pale when compared with hypothetical alternatives, especially if the actual candidate loses.
I'm sorry, I thought when you said "Hitler," you meant Hitler. There actually is an argument for Vance being worse than Trump. And you know what it is.
My political memory goes back to the Nixon years, and this just wasn't true in any circles any normal person cared about. Except when it was. Some candidates were or are, in fact, corrupt, anti-Semitic, racist, authoritarian, or profoundly stupid, and properly so called. You can make your own list. I doubt it would include, for example, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Robert Dole, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and several others. Sure, some on-line bozos referred to "Mittler," but they never got any traction. It probably carried less weight among voters than his treatment of his dog..
On “What If Trump Wins?”
Don't you think it's important to keep innocent people from suffering the consequences of other people's actions?
"
Well, you certainly said above what you say now. If that means you've "covered it," well I guess you've covered it.
"
Newsom.
"
I know there are lots of people who say things here. I assume that they think things somewhat related to what they say. But maybe not.
"
The transitive property works only if something is something, not if it is merely called something. Vance can be (really) worse than Trump without being (really) worse than Hitler. Unless you insist that Trump is, in fact, equivalent to or worse than Hitler. Now maybe you can find someone somewhere who really thinks that. In a country of 300-odd million people, some very odd indeed, there is bound to be somebody, but you'll have to look very hard and won't find very much.
"
When people talk about whether Harris is "qualified" to be President, I have to ask: "If that's your concern, the answer is Donald Trump?"
Now, compared to Johnny Unbeatable, she comes up short, but Johnny Unbeatable is fiction. Is any member of, say, Joe Biden's cabinet clearly better qualified and electable. (I love Janet Yellen, but come on...) There may well be governors or senators who see a President in the mirror every morning, and may even be very good, but was there any conceivable realistic process that would have thrown up somebody else on short notice without tearing the Party to pieces? Any actual candidate will always pale when compared with hypothetical alternatives, especially if the actual candidate loses.
"
A standard we can all sign off on.
"
I'm sorry, I thought when you said "Hitler," you meant Hitler. There actually is an argument for Vance being worse than Trump. And you know what it is.
"
A standard we can all sign on to.
"
Burying the lede.
On “Group Activity: The Donald Trump Madison Square Garden Rally”
I'll bet it sounded better in the original German.
On “What If Trump Wins?”
You must be new around here.
"
Obedience in advance.
On “From The Washington Post: On Political Endorsement”
That's one vote.
On “Open Mic for the week of 10/21/2024”
That article certainly hasn't aged well. And, after all, the "hyperbole" was, and remains, true. Truth isn't always symmetrical.
"
Yes. And yes.
"
My political memory goes back to the Nixon years, and this just wasn't true in any circles any normal person cared about. Except when it was. Some candidates were or are, in fact, corrupt, anti-Semitic, racist, authoritarian, or profoundly stupid, and properly so called. You can make your own list. I doubt it would include, for example, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Robert Dole, Michael Dukakis, Walter Mondale, and several others. Sure, some on-line bozos referred to "Mittler," but they never got any traction. It probably carried less weight among voters than his treatment of his dog..
"
I assume he means nine convictions, not nine arrests. At least I hope so.
"
Cut-and-paste:
Obviously the answer is to compare them to shoplifters and wonder why more people aren’t calling for their arrests.
"
You have to be able to catch them first. Is there a problem, specifically, with the cops not arresting shoplifters that they do catch?
On “From Semafor: Los Angeles Times won’t endorse for president”
It is, he can, and the rest of us can react as we please. Or is there an actual point?
"
No it doesn't.
"
Doesn't this qualify as "other"?
On “From The Atlantic: Trump: ‘I Need the Kind of Generals That Hitler Had’”
If he wins, the federal trials are toast and the state proceedings (sentencing in NY and the Georgia case) will be on hold anyway.
"
Sounds like a good reason to remind people of this old story.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.