Biden and Bloomberg: Trump as “existential threat”
First Biden said it, back in June:
Biden labeled Mr. Trump an existential threat to decency, America’s standing in the world, and democracy.
We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions. He represents an existential threat to our country and our values. If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage.
The stakes could not be higher. We must win this election. And we must begin rebuilding America.
Is anything going on here other than hyperbole and propaganda? Neither Biden nor Bloomberg really explains what each means by “existential threat.” Why not just label him as a simple “threat”?
I think the word “existential” is in there partly because it sounds highfalutin and intelligent (Sartre, anyone?), as well as being an intensifier. It’s not enough to say that Trump merely threatens the Democratic Party, (which he does) or the Deep State bureaucracy (which he does), or even certain leftist causes such as increased gun control. He doesn’t just threaten to turn the judicial system to the right by appointing conservative judges and justices.
“Existential” indicates it’s not just leftist causes he threatens, or the left. No, he threatens the very existence of decency, of democracy, of our country itself.
Is the existence of “decency” so very tenuous, is it hanging by such a slender thread, that one man’s tweets can obliterate it?
And he’s an existential threat to “democracy”? Is that a reference to the persistent idea that Trump stole the 2016 election, or do they mean something more than that? They usually don’t bother to explain; we listeners are supposed to know.
Our standing in the world seems fine to me. The economy is booming, but Bloomberg – who certainly must know something about finance and economics – insists that America must be “rebuilt.” Strange; I don’t see it collapsing around me.
However, these messages of “existential threat” conform to what liberals and the left (and a lot of people on the right, too) thought prior to Trump’s presidency and still think now—that Trump will either cause the world to end (through climate change or nuclear war, for example) or will wreak irreparable damage on the US (though those two mechanisms or countless others—economic and racial strife for starters).
Prior to Trump’s presidency some of those fears were at least somewhat plausible. He’d never held office. He seemed like a loose cannon. He was a rich real estate developer, self-promoter, and reality TV star. It was difficult to picture him dealing with world leaders or a country such as North Korea (not that any other president had dealt well with it either, but Trump’s bombast seemed especially worrisome).
Three years of Trump’s presidency has proven those particular fears wrong. Most people on the right have abandoned them by now, but the left and liberals not only (bitterly) cling to them, it sometimes seems that such fears have increased rather than decreased. The MSM and Democratic politicians and pundits have been fanning the flames of the panic, and although some (or much) of what they do is tactical and cynical, I know many people who listen and are sincerely and deeply afraid.
It’s interesting that Biden and Bloomberg – candidates who present themselves as the most moderate of the Democrats – are using this kind of apocalyptic language to stoke the already-existent fears about Trump. It belies the idea that they are moderate at all. But to play to the base, candidates have to speak in the language of the base. And that’s what they’re doing.
I pay close attention when they talk this way. The degree of fear expressed — how much is believed, I am not sure, but even 70% of it would be a large magnitude — keeps me hopeful! Trump must be something dynamite to call forth such extraordinary opposition. And from all the right people.
Trump IS an existential threat to a lot of people’s sense of self-worth. I think the last few decades of income inequality got supercharged by the introduction of social media to create a self-conscious ruling “elite” and what I call the elite-adjacent. These are folks who think they are WAAAAAY more powerful and important than they actually are and a larger bunch of folks who know they’re not important but love to believe they’re just like the supposed elite.
Both these groups were 100,000,000% certain they were right about Trump. Being proven wrong over and over again about him is a direct assault on their over-inflated egos.
Mike
Does Pres. Trump indulge himself in “values”-talk (i.e. empty, if not entirely useless talk, in my view.)? I haven’t paid close enough attention to say that I’ve noticed it, and in consequence wonder whether my not noticing may possibly indicate that he actually avoids using the term? But I don’t know. Have others noticed or picked up on his uses of “values” in speeches or extemporaneous remarks?
Trump an “existential threat to our country”?
Well, um, er, just another example of the projection of those arrayed against the current president, the hall of mirrors in which they “view”—i.e., invent, analyze and magnify—each and every one of his faults (while ignoring any and all of his accomplishments, which must necessarily be ignored since he CANNOT POSSIBLY, by definition, do anything positive), and the “echo chamber” that amplifies their mad ravings to the point where, to them, everything is obvious beyond any reasonable doubt.
Actually, the “existential threat” to the US was POTUS 44 and his pernicious administration running amok with “earnest” efforts to “fundamentally transform” the country and its institutions—while trampling anything and anyone that he believed was standing in his way—a feat that he managed to accomplish all too successfully, though not to the extent that he DREAMED….
He did, however prove to be an “existential threat” to his own party, whose “fundamental transformation” is practically complete to the extent that one wonders if it will ever be able to recover.
Another notch in the belt of the “law of unintended consequences”?
Well, perhaps not, since the “Obama Doctrine” was intended to upend everything—at home and abroad—with all the zeal, and perversity, of the ideologically pure:
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/293996/malley-in-wonderland
B & B are 100% correct. Trump is an existential threat to government of, by, and for Blueland. He actually believes that people who live between I-95 and I-5 (what we Bluelanders call “flyover country”), people who cling to their guns and their God, people who think that they actually did build that, should have a voice in government. How dare he?! He must be stopped! Excuse me, I must be going! Have to fly off to Davos in my private jet to attend the latest meeting of the G-7, IPCC, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations . . .
“…values…”
I do love Democrats talking about “values”….
Democrats trying to claim that something outside of the Democrat party is a threat to decency and the standing of the US in the world is difficult to discuss with a straight face. A Democrat wouldn’t know what decency was if it walked up and introduced itself, along with its preferred pronouns.
Trump is an existential threat to the Democrat party – not because of what he does, but because of what the Democrat party is doing to try to remove him. The danger lies in what happens if they succeed. Not because of Trump himself being present or absent, but because of the dire damage done by Democrats to the rule of law and the fabric of a nation that once described itself as a “melting pot.” Democrats are trying to outlaw political opposition … and watching them try to wrap themselves in the flag that yesterday they were trying to burn makes me want to puke.
it would be an impeachable offense if Trump had called Obama an existential threat.
I agree with them though this time. Trump is an existential threat to communist China and real traitors like Biden who take money from them to do their anti-America biddings.
Richard Saunders …
What? You’re not meeting with Greta Thunberg?
HOW DARE YOU?!?!!! 🙂
( excellent post BTW )
I would view this as something in the way of an “existential” threat . . . — Iran to Have Nuclear Bomb in a Few Months? — . . . an “existential” threat to the Iranian mullahs and their nuclear program, that is.
How would either Joe or Mike view it? Business as usual would be my guess.
I wonder how many people know what an “existential threat” is these days. I’m sure Bloomberg does, though how cynical he might be in using the phrase is another story.
But I’m not so sure about Biden or average readers. “Existential threat” has been bandied about as a linked construction for some time now. I think for many it means “Double-plus-ungood-threat-booga-booga.”
Yes sirree folks. We got trouble, right here in River City, er America. Remember that “Constitutional Crisis” we warned you about? It’s already happened. That’s so last year. Now you gotta protect yourself against the “Existential Threat.”
In the short term we can expect Trump to turn the government over to the Christian and Jewish churches and synagogues while establishing himself as dictator for life. But in 11 years, the world will end in a climate apocalypse anyway. Maybe less with Trump pulling out of the Paris accord and restarting coal mining.
We are all now living in Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.”
______
I don’t recall hearing Trump speak (and I’ve heard most of them) about “values” or gasp, “Judeo-Christian family values.” If he did, it might be perceived as too hypocritical given his sexual and marital past. Plus, he has VP Pence. BTW, I always semi-seriously thought that he picked Pence as some kind of assassination insurance. I even less seriously thought that Obama picked Biden as someone perceived to be too dumb and incompetent to be president.
______
Tucker Carlson is suggesting that Michelle Obama could enter the race. He points out that she is on a nation wide book tour, and also that campaign mastermind David Axelrod has gone out of his way to denigrate Biden at every turn. I hope Tucker is only deluding himself.
Statism is an existential threat to liberty. FIFY.
David Axelrod denigrates Biden.
Yes, well . . . it is an inappropriate excess to feed a live Adam Schiff into a running woodchipper.
But by all means, let us feed Slow Joe Biden into a running Trump and see what happens.
If Trump is an existential threat to America, or at least to the Democratic Party, it would behoove Democrats to pull-out all the stops to stop him, because the current odd lot in the spotlight won’t do the job.
We’ve just seen Deval Patrick and Bloomberg throw their hats in because they see an opening (even though I consider them no-hopers).
Carlson says, “The Democratic Party is ripping itself apart over race and gender and class. Michelle Obama, let’s be honest, is one of the only people who could unite the party’s warring factions.”
I think he’s right and I think Michelle O. is the only Democrat who could pose a serious threat to Trump next year.
If existential means existential, Michelle could be persuaded to put off her glam retirement for another four or five years. I am sure top Democrats are discussing the possibility.
I think he’s right and I think Michelle O. is the only Democrat who could pose a serious threat to Trump next year.
People do like to spin scenarios here. There is little evidence that Mooch takes an interest in much other than child-rearing, traveling, and decorative arts. Try figuring out what she did for a living for 17 years. She was certainly handsomely paid much of that time. Her last position was so crucial to the organization that it was eliminated in a hiring freeze when she vacated it. (She was paid $300k for the vital work she did). She was admitted to the bar in 1989. Her license lapsed in 1993. She hadn’t practiced in a couple of years at that point.
the only Democrat who could pose a serious threat to Trump next year.
They’ll all pose a threat, because Trump is having trouble closing the deal with swing voters and people who favor the Democrats will vote for just about anyone with a (D) after their name. Buttigieg will do a tad better than Marianne Williamson, but only a tad. You’ve had in recent weeks nearly half the public saying they’d like to impeach Trump over a Biden family scandal. Stupid? Of course. That’s the reality of the political culture in our time.
Art Deco does like to spin his gainsaying. That’s what you said last time and again you don’t address any of my points.
The issue is not her technical qualifications nor her motivation but her practical ability to pull together the Party with her husband’s help (whose qualifications you have dismissed as well) and be the most competitive against Trump in this election compared to the other candidates.
Michelle Obama hits a dream list of Dem checkboxes — female, black, reasonably attractive, non-geriatric, not crazy radical, high favorable name recognition and closely allied with Obama himself, now the elder statesman of the party and to Democrats, the perfect centrist.
KyndyllG on November 26, 2019 at 1:45 pm said:
…A Democrat wouldn’t know what decency was if it walked up and introduced itself, along with its preferred pronouns.
…Democrats are trying to outlaw political opposition … and watching them try to wrap themselves in the flag that yesterday they were trying to burn makes me want to puke.
* * *
Two home-runs in one comment!
PS They weren’t trying to burn the flag; they succeeded.
It’s been downhill from there.
I guess nobody ever told them, “If you don’t want a flag, don’t get one.”
He is an existential threat to democratic gerrymandering; environmental (e.g. Green Blight), labor (e.g. Apple, Nike, immigration reform, et al), and monetary arbitrage; dreams of redistributive change; social justice-mongering (e.g. elective wars, extrajudicial regime changes, catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform); diversity (e.g. racism, sexism) and exclusion; political congruence (“=”); Planned Parenthood and other human rights violations, including: reproductive rites, clinical cannibalism. And, of course, quid pro Joe, not limited to Joe.
Also, monopolies and practices, beginning with medical and surgical (e.g. Obamacare, single/central solutions), then scientific prophecies, notably [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] climate change as sociopolitical leverage for Green industry and investors.
Bloomberg has no chance whatsoever.
Biden as nominee brings deep scrutiny of Ukraine, his albatross. Once political ads start running, the MSM can’t give him cover.
Mooshelle is a fine hater and can be goaded into revealing her deep racism, as the nominee she’d shoot herself in her foot… repeatedly.
The 2020 election is the GOP’s to lose.
The more radical the dems get, the greater their loses in Congress will be in the 2020 election. Congressional republicans may be moving toward supporting Trump more and if so, Trump in his second term may be able to accomplish far more than in his first term. Starting with Ginsberg’s replacement.
That of course is dependent upon Trump not being assassinated, which the Left will surely attempt, perhaps before but certainly after reelection.
“Bloomberg – who certainly must know something about finance and economics – insists that America must be “rebuilt.” Strange; I don’t see it collapsing around me.”
There’s news that millions of people have good jobs, got a pay raise recently, and are participating in the all-time high in consumer confidence, and feel that the economy is terrible. (???)
“the left and liberals not only (bitterly) cling to them [Trump fears], it sometimes seems that such fears have increased rather than decreased.”
Ha! Bitterly clinging to their fears and hatreds. For them, religion is not allowed. Of course guns are allowed for the liberals and the left, but admitting ownership is not.
When two polls showed African-American support of Trump at 34%. CNN’s Ana Navarro responded,
“Zero chance this is accurate. Zero. The poll must have only been conducted in the homes of Ben Carson, Kanye, that sheriff guy with the hat and those two Cubic Zirconia & Polyester-Spandex ladies.”
Classy. Also bitter and clingy. Wait! Aren’t scientific polls always …, well scientific?
I do fear Art Deco is correct.
“You’ve had in recent weeks nearly half the public saying they’d like to impeach Trump over a Biden family scandal. Stupid? Of course. That’s the reality of the political culture in our time.”
How many likely voters could name the Speaker of the House and the current AG, without the use of their electronic brain replacements? Not a super significant litmus test, but I wonder. Oh shoot, I had to look up the current Sec. of Defense. I had heard the name but forgot it. Some guy named Espy.
The issue is not her technical qualifications nor her motivation
Yeah, it is. She doesn’t want the job, and she’s said so explicitly.
Trump is an existential threat to the Democratic party.
True, they should just say threat. But conservatives and Republicans most certainly say that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or the left are a threat too – some would use ‘apocalyptic language’ about their social democratic positions. So both sides always say the other side is a threat. I tend to dismiss this type of criticism because it doesn’t always tell us why. On this blog you do at least attempt to explain your reasons – as do sites like Vox. But winning elections tends to not involve too much in depth analysis. So we get typically pithy push button assessments like “Trump is a racist!” “Warren is a communist!”
The issue is not her technical qualifications nor her motivation. (huxley)
Yeah, it is. She doesn’t want the job, and she’s said so explicitly.
Art Deco: Good. The next time around we can discard your standard lecture on how unimpressive Michelle’s credentials are.
As to her motivation — my bet is half the boys who landed at Normandy didn’t want that job either, but they went– some because they were ordered to; others because they understood the Nazis were a terrible threat, maybe even existential.
You keep conveniently missing my point that sometimes people do things they don’t want because they do such things for a greater good — in this case stopping the threat of Trump and preserving her husband’s legacy.
Unless your argument is that Michelle is absolutely incapably of behaving for a greater good, I say we need to keep the possibility open instead of dismissing it.
If you must respond, please address that point.
“You keep conveniently missing my point that sometimes people do things they don’t want because they do such things for a greater good — in this case stopping the threat of Trump and preserving her husband’s legacy.”
Just stop. Any brokered convention fantasy requires there to be AT LEAST three remaining candidates with none of them really close to having enough delegates to win. These will be people who spent over a year of their lives and millions of dollars trying to win. The idea that they’re going to step aside for a woman who is actually LESS QUALIFIED THAN DONALD TRUMP is ridiculous.
Mike
Art Deco: Good. The next time around we can discard your standard lecture on how unimpressive Michelle’s credentials are.
Which wasn’t the subject of my discussion. My point has been that the woman shows little or no evidence of having had any ambition past the age of 27, or any interest in a true profession. (What’s peculiar about her life is that one agency after another handed her well-paid sinecures). Unlike her husband, she doesn’t show much evidence of being a vain fool, either. This isn’t the person to run for President and try to take the prize away from people who actually want it.
But conservatives and Republicans most certainly say that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or the left are a threat too – some would use ‘apocalyptic language’ about their social democratic positions.
We’re all pleased to have words stuffed in our mouths, to be sure.
Since both Warren and Sanders are yammering about an assets tax which would be (1) blatantly unconstitutional, (2) have wretched compliance costs, and (3) compel people to take out loans to pay taxes, they do add to the quantum of regime uncertainty. They’re also yammering about MOAR public financing of medical care to address the pathologies introduced by the already existing interventions in the market for medical services. The financing mode is to be this assets tax, an only a fool believes that’s going to be limited to ‘the other guy’. Tell them to send you better talking points.
Any brokered convention fantasy requires there to be AT LEAST three remaining candidates with none of them really close to having enough delegates to win.
+1
I propose a contest. Whoever can utter the most fearsome terrifying cant (hypocritical and sanctimonious talk, typically of a moral, religious, or political nature,) against Trump wins something good.
“But conservatives and Republicans most certainly say that Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or the left are a threat too …”
Yes, they would. Here’s the difference: after more than two and a half years of a Trump presidency, the country and its economy are intact. We conservatives are reasonably concerned that might not be true after two and a half years of either Sanders or Warren taxing us into oblivion for other people’s free stuff.
“…a dream list of Dem checkboxes…”
Plus she is on record as saying that she was SO VERY SOLIDLY UNPROUD of America for all those many, many years…until, until…finally…her husband became president.
If that’s not a qualification for a Democratic candidate in the current zeitgeist, then I don’t know what is…
…and it may just put her over the top.
Biden’s warning about Trump’s “existential threat” is quite obviously personal.
For Biden any attack on “me and my integrity—or my son and his integrity” is an attack on America.
(Not that Biden remembers what “integrity” means, but it’s four syllables and has a nice ring to it.)
As for Bloomberg, it may sound like he’s adopted the expression for its sheer hyperbolic value—but Bloomberg is quite a bit deeper than that, believing no doubt that America is under “existential threat” because Trump has yet to use his power of executive action to ban Big Gulp—further proof (were any necessary) that he is unfit to be president.
Looks like there may soon be an existential shortage of popcorn:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bombshell-admission-obama-would-speak-stop-bernie-sanders-if-he-gets-close-nomination
File under: Et tu Barack?
‘Existential threat’ means ‘a threat to the existence of’, and not anything complicated. Is Trump an existential threat to the United States? Obviously not. So what is he an existential threat to? I’d say, he threatens to destroy the silly pseudo-religious sacred cows of the modern left: abortion, human-caused climate change, minority advancement, politically correct culture and huge government. What if Roe vs Wade was overturned, and the sky didn’t fall in? What if no money was spent fighting a climate change that isn’t happening? What if minorities actually benefitted from a Republican Trump government? What if politically correct culture wasn’t just accepted by everyone without question? What if the government was gradually reduced in scope and size?
The left dread the answers to these questions, and can see a future where they are all resolved in a way that destroys their reason to exist.
Last night in Fl. rally: “We will never stop fighting for the sacred values that bind us together as one beautiful country, as one America.” — Pres. Trump
pffft
“I hope Tucker is only deluding himself.”
I hope she does, because the campaign commercials write themselves:
“Michelle 2020: The Past Is Prologue”
“A wife running as a front for her husband’s third term? Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah!”
Cut to a screenshot of a Lurleen Wallace campaign poster as AL governor, with the slogan “Let Lurleen run, but let George do it!”
(Actual history, BTW)
Then as her face morphs into Michelle and Barack replaces George, we can run through a list of Obama failures and leftist policies. Make sure to include a list of proposals for “whites not allowed” proposals such as segregated dorms with a soundtrack of George’s “Segregation Then, Segregation Now, Segregation Forever!” and then cut to a Black Lives Matter crowd shot.
“Do Americans actually want those policies back?”
This just in:
– There is no longer any real need to pay any attention to anything Bloomberg says (was there ever?):
https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomberg-xi-jinping-is-not-a-dictator/
(H/T: Instapundit)
– There never was any need to pay any real attention to anything Biden says (but he’s such an endearing thug—and full of goofy surprises in that “what will Joe come up with next!? fashion of his —that we all played along anyway).
– If one is looking for people who fully understand what an “existential threat” really is, look no farther than the Obama administration’s most painstakingly cultivated ally (and—coincidence!!—EU fave), who clearly knows what’s what:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8xwy3p/grisly-footage-reveals-what-irans-regime-did-to-protesters-when-the-internet-was-shut-down
(H/T: Instapundit)
Bloomberg probably knows what existential means, but Biden? Don’t be silly, but then again, few on the left know much more than “gimme free stuff” and I’ll vote for you.
It means he has no right to exist, like Leftists say about Israel. Too bad the GOP doesn’t vociferously object, but instead allows the Democrats’ rhetoric to spiral into crypto-Nazism. Disgusting.
“…rhetoric…”
There is most definitely a race to the bottom, fueled by an incendiary MSM.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/malcolm-nance-msnbc-trump-isis
It would appear they’re competing—avidly, proudly—for the title of who can spout the craziest, most provocative nonsense; who can be the most barking insane, all the while seeing themselves as responsible, moral and patriotic crusaders for Truth and Justice.
And the competition is stiff.
And true to form, they claim it’s the Trump supporters who are the members of a cult…
@neo:I think the word “existential” is in there partly because it sounds highfalutin and intelligent (Sartre, anyone?), as well as being an intensifier.
It only started there. Orwell described this in “Politics and the English Language”:
A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (e. g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves.
Eventually the word “threat” will never appear without “existential” tacked on up front.
There is no longer any real need to pay any attention to anything Bloomberg says (was there ever?):
https://freebeacon.com/issues/bloomberg-xi-jinping-is-not-a-dictator/
(H/T: Instapundit). [Barry Meislin]
Except that Bloomberg could argue that point and at least sound plausible, unlike the other dummies in the line. Amirite, Barry? He has so much more stature and so much more money, and has proven he can win as a Republican in NYC, defeating the huge Democratic machine. He even got the law changed so he could win a third term, as an independent.
The hunger to win is strong enough among the Democrats that Bloomberg’s positives may soon outweigh the conventional negatives of race, gender, wealth, and chauvinism. He is Trump but a lefty Trump. They will be susceptible to those ingredients, and should be!
So I think it’s a mistake to count this man out. He has already closed in on the top 4 in the betting over here; but you can still get 10-1 at some of the British books. A huge overlay.
Besides, they actually love the wealth, who are we kidding?
“He is Trump but a lefty Trump.”
This statement makes me think you have no actual idea why Trump was able to win, and thus no idea why Bloomberg won’t.
Bloomberg, by the way, has been itching to run for president for years. He backed away because the people he was paying to figure out if he could win told him he couldn’t. Presumably they’ve now told him differently, presumably because the present democrat field is so awful.
This is hardly a sign of strength for the guy. When there were decent candidates, it looked so bad that he never even bothered to run. Now, when the democrats are hell-bent on repeating the 2012 GOP campaign, maybe he can be 2020’s Mitt Romney, defeating a swarm of hilarious no-hope candidates like Joe Biden and the mayor of some town in Indiana. Maybe. Trump, on the other hand, rolled over what was widely seen as the best GOP field of my lifetime. Advantage: Trump.
Not only, but Bloomberg has to win over the insane activist base of his party. In fact he is already repudiating the policies that helped him win elections in NYC, which I’m sure is going to help win the votes from sane people elsewhere. No, not really.
But that’s the real problem the democrats have- they’re nuts. They have faced an utterly incompetent opposition for so long that they’re all completely convinced that they can have their cake, eat it, and make someone else pay for it. They’ve forgotten that politics is the art of the possible, etc, and now just want to make opposing their insane plans illegal.
That’s why their candidates look so awful. They’ve got to pander too much to the crazies, saying nonsense in an attempt to win those votes- but this is making them too extreme for the rest of the electorate. For once, the willingness to lie shamelessly and brazenly, Elizabeth Warren-style, hasn’t been enough. Their base demands too much. This dynamic also applies to Bloomberg, obviously.
Trump brought them to this- and it’s awesome. I can only imagine how well president Jeb Bush- fresh off an invasion of Syria and a huge tax increase, after choosing a leftist for the supreme court- would be looking. But that’s why the left correctly regards Trump as an existential threat- he is a competent Republican president, which is an enemy they haven’t faced in a good long time- and they can’t handle him at all.
I love it.
“…sound plausible…”
I suppose that’s possible, but I think that a lot depends on how much one agrees with Bloomberg’s definitions and on the assumptions on which his argument is based—especially taking into account the depth (or lack thereof) and context of those assumptions.
Me? I never really have been able to be convinced that GIGO leads to anything that sounds “plausible” (unless, of course, one actively disregards the GI)….
Neither Biden nor Bloomberg really explains what each means by “existential threat.” Why not just label him as a simple “threat”?
your point was taken care of in
The Existential Threat of Existential Threat Rhetoric
https://theglobepost.com/2019/05/17/existential-threat-rhetoric/
“It is a fact that when your national debt gets to the level that ours is … it constitutes an existential threat to the society.” National Security Adviser John Bolton
“[North Korea’s nuclear program] is an existential threat, potentially to the United States, but also to North Korea.” Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats
“If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I’d have to point to Russia.” Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Joseph Dunford
“Another existential threat, if Western man still sees himself as the custodian of the world’s greatest civilization, and one yet worth preserving, is the Third-Worldization of the West.” Political commentator Patrick Buchanan
“It’s not about politics, it’s about patriotism. It’s an existential threat, this administration, to our democracy, in terms of our Constitution.” Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi
“What makes a man a sophist,” said Aristotle, “is not his faculty, but his moral purpose.”
Those who employ existential threat rhetoric are the sophists whose subliminal intent is to bamboozle us with alarmist hyperbole. We do ourselves a disservice if we don’t see their sophistry for what it is and put it in its place.
Me? I never really have been able to be convinced that GIGO leads to anything that sounds “plausible” (unless, of course, one actively disregards the GI)….
Yes. But we’re not talking about you as a potential backer of Bloomberg for the nomination, we’re talking about Democrats. He only has to sound plausible to them. He’ll manage to, and while he is doing so, it will be increasingly clear that he has leadership abilities and not one of the others do — at least not on the national level.
To Xennady, similarly — we’re talking about potential Democratic nominees campaigning within their own party. This isn’t some other year, it’s this election. Bloomberg has far more going for him than the other Dems seeking the nomination, IMO. There are too many knowledgeable, experienced hands within the party to let the nomination go to a flake — that is my operating assumption. When the chips are down, they want to win and this guy is the strongest of these candidates on that basis. I think the rank and file will gravitate to him in primaries as they perceive the same thing. I grant you that his reversing former positions so quickly and pandering to dopes would seem to undercut this argument, but it may still turn out that he knows what he is doing in this regard. He is just so much better qualified than any of the others, this year, that he is the class of this field and should win going away.
Well it certainly appears that he will say anything:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7729001/Bloomberg-US-benefit-not-fewer-immigrants.html
And retract anything.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/19/coming-soon-bloomberg-apologies-for-everything-else-he-did-right-as-mayor/
And change party affiliation (again, again, and again).
Anything to get elected.
Well fair enough.
https://nypost.com/2019/11/25/bloomberg-is-the-most-qualified-2020-democrat-but-missed-his-moment/
Though all he really has to say is: “I’m not Trump”—which is the critical talking point, the crux of the matter, his most persuasive credential—and then let the MSM embark on what it does best.
(Those who will be persuaded will be persuaded. I assume that voter fraud will attempt to do the rest.)
WOW…!! GASP…!! OMG…!!
“Existential Threat”!!
Shhheeessshh..I thought the Koolaid Guzzlers reserved that treasured term for Man Made Global Warming… errr… Climate Shhhaaaaaaannnngggeee!!
Kai Akker,
Point taken, and you may well be correct.
However, I doubt it. I suspect the leftist base has moved to far away from reality to be interested in such things as qualifications and competence. Rank-and-file democrats may well be- but I also suspect those folks are Trump-curious and won’t be fond of the pandering Bloomberg is about to uncork in an attempt to win over the activist crazies.
Of course, I could be completely wrong. Time will tell.
Kai Akker on November 27, 2019 at 10:27 pm said:
… There are too many knowledgeable, experienced hands within the party to let the nomination go to a flake — that is my operating assumption. When the chips are down, they want to win and this guy is the strongest of these candidates on that basis.
* * *
I’m back from vacation, so this is old news, but I wanted to point out that those KEHs did, in 2016, let the nomination go to a flake, who was also a criminal-walking.
So, they may want to win, but they have no idea HOW anymore.
No bets on Bloomberg on that count.
Aesop, I just caught up with your comment. Would you really say Hillary Clinton was a flake?
She is a lot of things, and I agree with your other characterization of her, but I don’t think a tough killer like her could be considered in the same category with E Warren, B Sanders, or even Joey B. We are darned lucky she didn’t listen more to her husband’s advice, because she still came so close — so close. That Foundation was a powerhouse while it ran.
Kai Akker on November 27, 2019 at 10:27 pm said:
“When the chips are down, they want to win and this guy is the strongest of these candidates on that basis. I think the rank and file will gravitate to him in primaries as they perceive the same thing. I grant you that his reversing former positions so quickly and pandering to dopes would seem to undercut this argument, but it may still turn out that he knows what he is doing in this regard.”
I know you meant the current D candidates were flakes in the old-style hippie sense of “loosely moored to reality,” but the bolded sentence makes Bloomberg look just as flakey as the rest — as it also did Hillary when she changed many of her former positions for 2008 and 2016 — something that both the cognoscenti and the regular voters may not be able to get past (even assuming the MSM don’t just bury him so the latter get no opportunity to inspect his sterling qualitities; at last look, the media were stumping for Warren, but I may be behind the news a bit).
I think Bloomberg’s time in the Democratic Party is way past going back to, and Biden had the eminence gris slot sewn up anyway (if he still does).
But, you could be right.
Strange things happen in Presidential primaries.
To clarify a bit further: I was commenting less about the qualities of the candidates than the qualities of the supposed “experienced hands” in the Dem party, who are –after all — the ones who conspired in 2016 to make Hillary the candidate, despite her obvious personal flaws and criminal actions.
Doesn’t augur well for their favorite choice this time.
Hey, aren’t you forgetting the tight margins in many of the decisive states? All it would have taken in several of those is one MORE truckload of those absentee ballots the interns made up to have given us a President Hill. She was a battler, despite her keeling-over episodes. Those made the women love her even more; hanging in there against the awful males all around us. So, yes, the Dem power guys got too complacent and didn’t order the final truckload. Now that they’ve learned, next time could be much tougher.
Just in re Hillary the non-flake. Re Bloomberg, sure, might not pan out. But not for any shortage of leadership; that’s his big plus. Saw his ads already hitting TV over the weekend. A doer.
“So, yes, the Dem power guys got too complacent and didn’t order the final truckload.”
Not a mistake they will make this time.
I would love to have a Constitutional amendment limiting all campaigns to the six months prior to the election.
This current system of launching the next campaign as soon as (or before?) the ballots are counted for the last one is crazy.
I get you on the 7:13 and 7:47 posts. And I get you on this one, too. A seemingly endless parade of junky thoughts and junky people. But let the Constitution stay in its simplicity. These Democratic candidates keep burning themselves out, appropriately. With any luck they won’t have anyone left in November.
How about Trump on both tickets?
“How about Trump on both tickets?”
Schroedinger’s Candidate?
IIRC, he waffled between the Democrats and Republicans for years before deciding to crash the GOP party. Arguably, if the Dems had just let sleeping Very Stable Geniuses Lie (as in “recumbent”), they would not have generated any of the investigations they are now facing (Streisand Effect on steroids).
Good post that lays out a lot of arguments against Bloomberg, which is that he is the very epitome of the worst kind of politician.
https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/michael-bloomberg-tax-the-poor-for-their-own-good/
BY LARRY ELDER DECEMBER 5, 2019