Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar
-
In the last paragraph, Sullivan states, "He remains the only choice in this election."
Everything else if a veiled attempt to justify why "He remains the only choice in this election."
But he is a good mind reader. Much better than me. It would be so much fun to float through the post-structuralist haze of subjective facts, with the main point being what I quoted.
Since I can't mindread, I listen carefully to what the rioters and protesters say at 3:00 am, what I overhear them talk about on YouTube live-stream videos (before YouTube cut them all, and I mean all, so nothing much live after 1:00 am). The protesters and rioters are, in my assessment, quite braindead. The protesters have NOTHING of substance to say or comment upon (they're mostly kids that maybe thought "critical thinking" in high school meant scream loudest), however they are well trained to provide the antiphonal responses to the chant leaders, i.e., the cantor with the megaphone. The rioters are losers with a cause, whether it's a new TV or destroying anything they know deep down they could never create or build.
Based upon my late-night research and other stuff over the course of time, I really have to disagree with his devotion to "He remains the only choice in this election." He may be surprised that his readers think for themselves and laugh at his stupid loftiness.
Regarding Weimar and what little I know, Sullivan can sit in the wheelbarrow of useless cash and have his most thoughtful readers push him off a cliff. They could even slap a Biden/Harris bumper sticker on it before the heave-ho.
-
It’s always something.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
Biden is a pale comparison to Weimar’s Hindenburg, but then again Trump is farce to the tragedy of Hitler.
Maybe Spain in the 30s is an interesting comparison to think through.
Good idea. I just spent 3 seconds covering everything I know about Spain in the 30's. Why don't you bring me (us) up to your level, so the obscure becomes obvious?
I could type "Spain" into Google. But somehow I don't think that will bring me the erudition you require in assumed great depth of knowledge you'd like discourse in. Sorry, trying to sound intelligent, I'm not good at it. And sorry for the preposition, but Aqua said it's OK.
-
@Rainman said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
In the last paragraph, Sullivan states, "He remains the only choice in this election."
Everything else if a veiled attempt to justify why "He remains the only choice in this election."
But he is a good mind reader. Much better than me. It would be so much fun to float through the post-structuralist haze of subjective facts, with the main point being what I quoted.
Since I can't mindread, I listen carefully to what the rioters and protesters say at 3:00 am, what I overhear them talk about on YouTube live-stream videos (before YouTube cut them all, and I mean all, so nothing much live after 1:00 am). The protesters and rioters are, in my assessment, quite braindead. The protesters have NOTHING of substance to say or comment upon (they're mostly kids that maybe thought "critical thinking" in high school meant scream loudest), however they are well trained to provide the antiphonal responses to the chant leaders, i.e., the cantor with the megaphone. The rioters are losers with a cause, whether it's a new TV or destroying anything they know deep down they could never create or build.
Based upon my late-night research and other stuff over the course of time, I really have to disagree with his devotion to "He remains the only choice in this election." He may be surprised that his readers think for themselves and laugh at his stupid loftiness.
Regarding Weimar and what little I know, Sullivan can sit in the wheelbarrow of useless cash and have his most thoughtful readers push him off a cliff. They could even slap a Biden/Harris bumper sticker on it before the heave-ho.
There was a de facto leader of Chaz who clearly had MLK envy. It was embarrassing listening to her attempt to soapbox. There are no interesting ideas behind these riots. Collin Kaepernik does not have a single interesting idea in his head. And what's more nobody expects him to. This is all cheap and very effective manipulation of mob outrage, by the left-leaning media and politicians.
As far as Trumpism goes and the non-starter voting for him is, there is nothing there, either. The best TDS folks are able to do lately is to point to the riots and say "this is Trump's America". Even jon buys into that tribal mantra. As ideas go, it is not a rational one.
-
I for one agree with most of what Sullivan says.
The "extinction level event for liberal democracy" thing is a little extreme terminology-wise, but Trump has by now made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a fuck about liberal democracy and the like. Just recently he was talking about how he'd step down in 20 years and about how the only possible explanation if he looses would be that there must have been election fraud.
I also agree with his stance on the American left. A good analysis of how they went completely nuts in a time when they should have provided a credible alternative.
As for the comparison to Weimar, I don't think the comparison is absurd. It's a little disappointing that the reactions in this forum have mostly been along the predictable tribal lines. If we'll get a major economic crisis - and I think we will -, tensions will rise even more. The political climate that enabled the transition from Weimar to Hitler is similar. But there are also some major differences. The US has better constitutional protection against tyrants (an "Ermächtigungsgesetz" would be way harder, division of power is mostly intact). There is no "Dolchstosslegende" and no scape goat like the Jews. And the economic situation isn't as bad yet. But still, it's not an absurd comparison.
-
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
point to the riots and say "this is Trump's America". Even jon buys into that tribal mantra. As ideas go, it is not a rational one.
Well, to be fair I use that phrase to point out the absurdity of Trump calling it ‘Biden’s America’.
Having said that, surely presidents will differ in where they fall on the (as W might put it) “uniter vs divider’ scale. Surely presidents differ in how they respond to widespread protests, from taking steps to lower the pressure on one hand to publicly antagonizing and threatening on the other.
Honestly I think people here say to themselves “but these rioters aren’t by and large Trump supporters” and from that facile comment completely absolve him from any causal role.
-
@Klaus said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
and no scape goat like the Jews.
Don’t worry, that’s never far behind.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
point to the riots and say "this is Trump's America". Even jon buys into that tribal mantra. As ideas go, it is not a rational one.
Well, to be fair I use that phrase to point out the absurdity of Trump calling it ‘Biden’s America’.
Having said that, surely presidents will differ in where they fall on the (as W might put it) “uniter vs divider’ scale. Surely presidents differ in how they respond to widespread protests, from taking steps to lower the pressure on one hand to publicly antagonizing and threatening on the other.
Honestly I think people here say to themselves “but these rioters aren’t by and large Trump supporters” and from that facile comment completely absolve him from any causal role.
I wonder if you guys hold Lukashenko blameless for the situation in Belarus since the protesters are very obviously not his people.
-
@bachophile said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
@Klaus said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
and no scape goat like the Jews.
Don’t worry, that’s never far behind.
Right now it's white folks.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
@Horace said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
point to the riots and say "this is Trump's America". Even jon buys into that tribal mantra. As ideas go, it is not a rational one.
Well, to be fair I use that phrase to point out the absurdity of Trump calling it ‘Biden’s America’.
Having said that, surely presidents will differ in where they fall on the (as W might put it) “uniter vs divider’ scale. Surely presidents differ in how they respond to widespread protests, from taking steps to lower the pressure on one hand to publicly antagonizing and threatening on the other.
Honestly I think people here say to themselves “but these rioters aren’t by and large Trump supporters” and from that facile comment completely absolve him from any causal role.
OK, I'll go there with you. Show me how Trump has a causal role in the current situation. What has he done to cause or increase police brutality toward blacks? To diminish civil rights? To my eyes these riots and protests started before he even took office. If you want to say that it is because some people do not like Trump and don't want him to be president, fine. But it's not as far as I can see attributable to anything he has actually done.
-
@jon-nyc said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
Honestly I think people here say to themselves “but these rioters aren’t by and large Trump supporters” and from that facile comment completely absolve him from any causal role.
What I say, and what I have said repeatedly, is that Trump-the-Great-Divider is an all time great self fulfilling prophecy. When one side of the aisle hates the guy a priori because of his human phenotype, the division is baked in. Everything else is retconning that division to be the fault of the guy with the repellent phenotype.
-
Which presidential power should Trump wield to halt the cycle of white cop shoots black guy on video->everybody becomes as hysterically outraged as they can be because hysterical outrage is a virtue signal->rioting?
Which power could CNN wield? Which power could the democrat political leaders of the cities being rioted against wield? Who's wielding their power appropriately and nobly in this situation? To whom are we to look, other, of course, than people who miraculously are able to find fault with both sides? (Wow what an intellectual feat! So special!)
-
-
-
@Mik said in Andrew Sullivan: This is very Weimar:
You said he had a causal role. Do you have anything to back that up other than you don't like him?
I didn’t mean literally the proximate cause of the initial protest, obviously that was the Floyd death. I mean that he personally as well as his actions and words were a key part of the very complex set of circumstances that has fueled their intensity and duration.
His divisiveness obviously played a role in the political tensions leading up to it (Horace agrees here with the causal chain, but assigns moral responsibility for his divisiveness to the outgroup).
But once they started you could think of myriad ways he could have dialed down the temperature or tried to give the protesters a voice. Heck, even inviting some of them to join a bipartisan group to make recommendations for municipal, state and federal rule changes. Presidents do that kind of thing all the time. It’s kind of what politics is. Instead he antagonized with words and deeds.
It just didn’t have to be this way.
