Former first lady and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the wreckage from another Trump presidency would be “almost unimaginable” and likened the former president who beat her in the 2016 ele…
No, it’s worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.
One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.
I’d need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.
Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn’t really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.
I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.
I think it’s close enough that you can get the point.
No, it’s worth noting that it was lesser evil voting in a sense that got Hitler appointed. The Social Democrats blocked with the Conservative Hindenburg, who won. Hindenburg then appointed Hitler Chancellor.
One wonders what would have happened if the Social Democrats had blocked with the Communists in a left slate, or at least gotten concessions from the Conservatives.
Edit to add link to 1932 election. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_German_presidential_election
I’d need to have much more of a background in that era of Germany to start speculating like that. We might as well talk about Hitler being accepted into Art School or whatever that butterfly effect idea was.
Choosing to support the right wing guy, Hindenburg, that didn’t really believe in democracy who in less than 2 years later appoints the guy who ends democracy is not a big stretch of cause and effect.
I’m saying I am not familiar enough with the party structure and how collations needed to be formed to be comfortable to speculate. You may be right, you may be wrong. I don’t know. You’re not the first person I’ve seen say it.
No, it’s not. Being appointed and being elected are fundamentally different. One implies a Democratic process, the other does not.
His party was democratically elected to gain enough power to get appointed. That’s the point.