"... by the people his base found hateful; because he had an opponent who, in the minds of his supporters, epitomized corruption and self-dealing; and because he offered radical cures for a country he diagnosed as desperately ill. Despite being the oldest man ever elected president, he seemed (to his voters) fresh, true, bold, and sorely needed. So it is, and would be, with Sanders. Depth of conviction? Check. Contempt for conventional norms? Check. Opposed by all the right people? Check. Running against a 'crooked' opponent? Check. Commitment to drastic change? Check. Like Trump, too, he isn’t so much campaigning for office as he is leading a movement. People who join movements aren’t persuaded. They’re converted. Their depth of belief is motivating and infectious."
From
"Of Course Bernie Can Win/To say Sanders is unelectable is indefensible" by Bret Stephens (NYT).
I'm giving this post my
"the Sanders and Trump phenomenon" tag, and now, I've got to remind myself what got me started with that. Oh! I see I used it once.
It was March 14, 2016:
Trump and Sanders represent a single phenomenon, no? It's a phenomenon that Hillary and the GOP establishment have a motivation to minimize, and portraying Trump as toxic (and Sanders a nice, but unrealistic old man) is a minimization device.
पोस्ट्स
२१९ टिप्पण्या:
«सर्वात जुने ‹थोडे जुने 219 पैकी 201 – 219yeah... right... Content is important. It'll be a long 10 months. Maybe switch focus to interior decor and car maintenance.
Michael K said...
Assuming the United States remained I have no argument against selling the British war material but we should have stayed out of the war.
Neutral means neutral, mike. By not staying neutral we pretty much declared war against Germany even if we had not fired a shot.
When we shipped the first bullet to England, guaranteed that we wold be neck deep in ww1.
Wilson, fdr both lied us into a european war that the majority of americsns were opposed to. Both ran explicitly on platforms (1916,1940) that they would keep us out (lbj too in 64 about Vietnam)
All the while scheming to get us in.
I think Hoover, in his capacity as a private citizen at great physical risk and personal expense, feeding millions of european civilians, (1914-17) was a true hero.
I would have been ok with the us helping that effort.
Not sening war materials and dragging us into the war which had no more to do with us than the iran-iraq war of the 80s. Root for injuries.
John Henry
I
Greg,
I really, really like Cruz.
My ONLY problem is that being born in Canada and thus does not meet the "natural born" requirement.
Yes, people much more competent in this are disagree with me. But a lot of other very competent people agree.
I didn't think mccain was qualified for this reason to. Lots of other reasons to detest him, of course.
John Henry
Cruz does not have the charisma Trump has, and the ability to connect with blue collar voters that Trump has.
And Cruz would not have done well in the rust belt.
Plus Trump ran an amazing digital campaign and a frugal effective on the ground campaign. I’m still amazed he won.
>> it is quite likely that the German Empire could have held out until... <<
IIRC, that was on Churchill's list of three German mistakes. The other two were invading through Belgium (brought in the British) and unrestricted submarine warfare (brought in the Americans).
Recalling a bit harder, I think the third mistake Churchill listed was that Germany launched the 1918 Spring offensive instead of withdrawing to the Hindenburg line and setting up defenses. That would have put them in a much stronger bargaining position. At the end of the war they still had ~million troops in the Ukraine which they could have continued to bring west. Whether they could have obtained food from the Ukraine is an issue I've never seen discussed, the area had been pretty much devastated.
That wasnt the main problem
Ukrainians were split into two separate and opposing armies. 3.5 million fought with the Imperial Russian Army, while 250,000 fought for the Austro-Hungarian Army.[4] Many Ukrainians thus ended up fighting each other. Also, many Ukrainian civilians suffered as armies shot and killed them after accusing them of collaborating with opposing armies (see Ukrainian Austrian internment).[5]
The russians had invaded galicia to drive out the austrian forces (its noted in dr zhivago.
naturally like your website however you need to check the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to inform the reality however I will certainly come again again. situs poker online terpopuler
I voted for Cruz in the primary. He would have lost to Hillary. The deep state was geared up to attack any Republican on Hillary's behalf. Trump is/was uniquely equipped to fight back, in ways no one was expecting.
His mastery of free publicity is unparalleled. His twitter use, while gauche and unseemly to many, forces the media to discuss what he wants to discuss. His personal attacks on other candidates, all of them, was like nothing seen since the 1800s, when politics was much less gentlemanly than it is today. Remember how Lazio couldn't come back from simply walking over to the goddess Hillary? Do you think Trump would have been hampered by criticism over that?
I sometimes think Trump is the physical manifestation of the old saying, "God watches over fools, drunks, and the United States of America."
Trust odds-makers who put their monney where their mouth is! Ladbrokes>>>Silver!
daskol said: "Poor Brett Stephens, confusing the similarity in the phenomenon of Trump and Bernie’s elevation to a similarity in their chances to win in 2020. "
I've heard precisely the same argument from the Bernie supporters: "How dare you equate Bernie to Trump! Trump is a racist, a fascist, and a misogynist. Bernie fights for all the people!"
That's why all the arguments here from the Trump supporters leave me cold. Change "Trump" to "Bernie" and they sound just like the Bernie supporters.
And if you think that Bernie is insincere because has soft-pedaled his anti-immigration stance, let me remind you that Trump was a DEMOCRAT who hung around Billl and Hillary Clinton until he decided to run for President. Compare some of the things that Trump said about politics back then with what he says now.
I believe NOTHING in or from the NYT or the WaPoo.
RBE said...
If the Democratic Party had nominated Hillary instead of Obama, she could have been a two term President while Obama, as VP, was waiting in the wings.
Just as we do have to thank Hitler for killing Hitler, we do have to thank Obama for rescuing us from President Hillary.
Neutral means neutral, mike. By not staying neutral we pretty much declared war against Germany even if we had not fired a shot.
Disagree. We offered to sell material for cash. In WWI, Britain had enormous investments in the US. They could have liquidated most of them.
Germany did not have the capability to buy from us. I don't think they tried. The Zimmerman telegram was an enormous blunder although I think there is still some suspicion of British involvement.
The Schliefen plan was almost a guarantee of British involvement. I think the Boer War was a significant factor in WWI. Long story.
Gk1 said...
There is no way on earth Cruz would ever have won the general election. Sorry, he doesn't have the guts to cut holes through the MSM.
Really? The guy who carved his way through most of his GOP colleagues in the Senate with his "ObamaCare filibuster" wouldn't have been willing to fight the MSM? Um, no.
The guy who ran against corn subsidies in Iowa would have been afraid to fight the MSM?
Um, no.
John henry said...
Greg,
I really, really like Cruz.
My ONLY problem is that being born in Canada and thus does not meet the "natural born" requirement.
A "natural born citizen" is a person born a US Citizen. Cruz's parents were American citizens. He was therefore born a US Citizen, and met the "natural born citizen" requirement.
If the Founders wanted to require future Presidents to be born in the territories of the US, they could, and would, have said that. They didn't
Ray - SoCal said...
Cruz does not have the charisma Trump has, and the ability to connect with blue collar voters that Trump has.
And Cruz would not have done well in the rust belt.
All true. OTOH, Cruz does not have the repulsiveness Trump has, the gaucheness that caused him to talk about his dick size at one of the GOP debates.
Cruz would have beaten the most repulsive Major Party candidate in history (that would be Hillary) differently than Trump did. More suburbs, less blue collar. His victory coalition would have been more Bush II than Trump.
But he would have won. Because 95%+ of the people who voted for Trump because Hillary was so bad, would have voted for Cruz. And a bunch of the people who voted for Hillary because Trump was so bad, would have voted for Cruz
Sanders vs Trump:
A man whose ideas have often been tried and never been successful for the people
vs
A man whose ideas have rarely been tried, but which always succeed for the people
~~~ or
A man whose ideas have killed millions
vs
A man whose ideas have freed millions
~~~ or
A man who's made millions by promising stuff he has never delivered
vs
A man who's made billions creating jobs and building large useful assets
~~~ or
A man who blames America
vs
A man who defends America
~~~ or
A man whose life experience involves primarily bitching, sowing discord and organizing his sock drawer
vs
A man whose life experience involves bringing people together to manage multiple large organizations and projects with many thousands of employees.
~~~
Yea, same thing.
I wanted Cruz too, and I have no idea if he would have beat Hillary. What Trump voter would have voted for Hillary rather than Cruz. Trump had enthusiasm on his side, but an enthusiastic vote is still just one vote. I think Cruz could have made a better case against Hillary and her corruption, and he would be much harder to portray as dangerous, crazy, or un-presidential, which I think did cost Trump a lot of independents. It was a fear of mine at the time too, but Hillary instead? No way in hell. I think Cruz could have done quite well.
"Polish Guarantee of Chamberlain was an insane act. The British had no way to aid Poland. The French collapsed quickly,."
Yes, the British should have let Hitler remain in power indefinitely without making any attempt to get rid of him.
Just think: If the British and Americans had been willing to let Hitler take over all of Europe and Russia, you wouldn't be threatened by AOC now.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा