No, no, no, no, no! The enemy of my enemy is NOT MY FRIEND! Have you seen the anti-sematic garbage spewing from his "AI" Grok? Not to mention the people who are dying because USAID is gone, and the rest of the DOGE destruction. No, nothing for Musk, he can fuck all the way off.
The concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has been around for millennia. But it ultimately never works, because to have an alliance you need some kind of shared values. That said, if Musk wants to blow up MAGA, fine. But we need to avoid the delusion that Musk is ever going to be a friend of rational democratic governance and the rule of law.
It worked in WWII with the Soviet Union. Desperate times sometime call for desperate measures. I'm not saying we should be nice to Elon or endorse his toxic beliefs, but encouraging him to divide the crazy MAGA coalition? I'm all for it.
This is one of the most interesting cases in history. The Soviet Union was one of the key perpetrators in starting World II, along with Nazi Germany and Japan, invading Poland, Finland and the Baltic nations (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) and providing Nazi Germany with large amounts of war materials prior to the 1941 invasion by Germany. Yet the Soviet Union emerged as one of the winners when it deserved defeat and dismemberment, in my opinion. They ended up annexing large swaths of territory and eliminating the Baltic nations for 50 years, along with occupying Eastern Europe and creating mayhem around the world. The Soviet Union likely would have collapsed in 1941-42 without critical US aid. One of my great uncles was a merchant marine sailor in World War II delivering aid from the US to Murmansk in the Soviet Union. I’ve always wondered if the allies would have been better off letting Germany and Russia bleed themselves to death and then pick up the pieces. One of those alternative histories for the fiction writers.
Interesting thought exercise. In fact that is kind of what postwar Soviet propaganda tried to convey, that the US was waiting to see who would win out between Germany and the USSR before committing to the war effort, and jumped in late on the side of the Soviets in order to end up on the winning side (this completely ignores the fact that the US entered the war in 1941). It also reminds me of the George C. Scott Patton movie (not sure how true this was), where he was of the mind that the Allies should have continued advancing against the Soviets once they'd occupied all of Germany and not stopped until they'd taken Moscow.
Yea, I never knew if that was true with Patton either. The Soviet and current Russian government propaganda conveniently leaves out the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 and then then secret protocols carving up Eastern Europe, as well ad the wholesale massacres of Polish and Baltic nations civilians and key leaders.
My wife is Russian, and my father-in-law, who received a good Soviet education, literally thought that the US entered the war in 1944 with the invasion of Normandy! And yes, they completely ignore the events of 1939 through May 1941, and are silent regarding all the US materiel aid which as you mention was critical to their eventual success on the Eastern front.
The Soviets kept the Allies in the fight while the US was still getting its shit together in 42-43. Germany recklessly engaged in a war on two fronts, perhaps because they had forced the Tsar's forced to capitulate in WWI. Soviet resistance to the invasion forced Hitler to commit a huge amount of his army and airforce to the eastern front, which made fewer aircraft and crews available for the air campaign against Britain.
I generally agree with your comment and I could respond in great detail, having studied World War II history in college and after. Let me just say this as an addition and an alternative. Prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the Nazis could not defeat the UK navy and air force, so they could not conquer the UK. Even if Germany conquered the Soviet Union in 1941, once the US entered World War II, the Nazis were done. The US produced more war materials than all other countries in World War II combined. The war almost certainly would have taken longer, but there is no objective doubt the US and the UK would have been victorious even without one Soviet soldier entering the fight, even apart from nuclear weapons. Even if the Soviet Union allied with Germany, they never could have defeated the US and the UK, although that would have been an even longer and bloodier war. Of course once the US had nuclear bombs combined with the best bombers, the US could have destroyed all German and Russian cities and manufacturing capabilities and ended any war.
I agree with your conclusion about eventual victory, but even if Operation Sealion was just 'vaporware' for Hitler to dream about, would Britain have been able to stay in the fight? Britain was hanging on by a thread, both in terms of military capability and civilian morale, with cities being bombed and cargoes sunk left and right. "Barbarossa" gave the RAF breathing space to build fighters aircraft and train pilots to limit success of German bombers, imho. (Noe: not an expert on mil hist)
And at Treaty time in Croatia, both Churchill and Roosevelt were too ill to successfully prevent Stalin’s demands for dividing up Europe. The Poles had been key to winning the war in Europe, but Poland went to the USSR. A travesty in my view.
Soviet (not "Society" - c'mon, spellcheck, read my mind, not my typos) forces were the occupying power in the west; Roosevelt had the Pacific theater to contend with and the planned transfer of troops and materiel for the invasion of Japan (in case The Bomb was a fizzle).
And as you (I think it was) noted, both old men had nearly killed themselves with work and worry through the war.
We should take note of this in light of our current Prez's age & condition; the NC+SC is supposed to be carrying some of the weight but its staff has been reduced and may not have much say in planning. No man should be permitted to make these decisions concerning the life & death of the entire nation, in my NOT humble opinion.
How much encouragement do you think he needs? Seriously, the man impulsively bought twitter for $40 billion to turn it into his personal megaphone. Better to just buy popcorn (lot's of popcorn!), and watch the spectacle.
I'm defintiely stocking up on the popcorn! Elon is so loony that I don't think anyone knows what the hell he's going to do next. Most likely he'll just apologize again to Trump and give up as soon as his government contracts and subsidies are threatened. Although if he really believes all the Epstein stuff maybe there will be some staying power to this.
As an example: Iranian democratic moderates who allied with radical Islamists to overthrow the Shah. Then, well, we all remember what happened (at least those of us of a certain age).
Agree- look at how much they've happily gone along with for the past 10 years. Elon is insane enough to try this alternative party retribution gimmick. But he also has drug-assisted ADHD. So how long will he persist? Also, Trump is threatening to axe his government contracts. And WOW! - maybe even try to deport him.
That won't succeed, obviously but it further insults and fires Elon up. Elon's clearly in a white hot rage right now. But to say he's mercurial is like saying the Titanic had a bad day in the North Atlantic 113 years ago. He's an emotionally volatile boy-man. IMO, take great care in enemy of enemy alliances. More often, the cure was more deadly than the disease.
I get your point but your missing the big picture. We aren’t supporting Musk, just supporting the chaos.
Think of it as supporting an incumbents most hated competitor in a Republican primary race; you aren’t supporting the nut job running against the incumbent, as much as you’re hoping he will win the primary knowing he’d find it difficult to win the general, or to inflict enough damage on the incumbent to muddy to waters during the general.
Trump is the epitome of the “Chaos Agent.” To fight fire with fire, we need to rein chaos on the chaos agents so we can control the narrative. In short, we’re not supporting Musk, we’re supporting the chaos, or more aptly, the controlled chaos. IMHO…:)
Correct. We are not supporting (f)Elon just the damage he can inflict on the Felon and MAGA land, which (f)Elon is already doing by getting royally under the notoriously thin skin of the Orangutan (no insults to simians intended), and making him focus on this new shiny object that he does not like.
We don't need to become "friends" with Elon, we just need to take advantage of his enormous platform to sow discontent among the MAGA masses. That should be on the minds of all Dems and the resistance. Keep stoking the fire. With luck, those fools may burn their own house down.
Musk America Party or no Musk America Party, it might all be irrelevant if elections are corrupted or canceled. The underlying debate assumes regular elections which seem very much in doubt.
I worry that anything Musk does will strip away votes not ONLY from MAGA wackadoodles, but also actual centrists that are frustrated with Democrats seeming failures.
Regardless of what you might think, this wouldn't work the way anyone thinks.
there's principles and values, and there's realpolitik. I personally don't think the realpolitik play here is worth the moral cost and moral hazard (so I agree with you), but I think anyone talking about using Musk to wedge the MAGA base is probably not making a moral or values-based argument.
No, no, no, no, no! The enemy of my enemy is NOT MY FRIEND! Have you seen the anti-sematic garbage spewing from his "AI" Grok? Not to mention the people who are dying because USAID is gone, and the rest of the DOGE destruction. No, nothing for Musk, he can fuck all the way off.
The concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend has been around for millennia. But it ultimately never works, because to have an alliance you need some kind of shared values. That said, if Musk wants to blow up MAGA, fine. But we need to avoid the delusion that Musk is ever going to be a friend of rational democratic governance and the rule of law.
It should be revised to, “The enemy of my enemy is my tool.” Not a friend, but an instrument to be manipulated, keeping one’s true goals in focus.
^This.
Totally! One doesn’t need to participate or even interact with this development to take advantage of it.
It worked in WWII with the Soviet Union. Desperate times sometime call for desperate measures. I'm not saying we should be nice to Elon or endorse his toxic beliefs, but encouraging him to divide the crazy MAGA coalition? I'm all for it.
This is one of the most interesting cases in history. The Soviet Union was one of the key perpetrators in starting World II, along with Nazi Germany and Japan, invading Poland, Finland and the Baltic nations (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) and providing Nazi Germany with large amounts of war materials prior to the 1941 invasion by Germany. Yet the Soviet Union emerged as one of the winners when it deserved defeat and dismemberment, in my opinion. They ended up annexing large swaths of territory and eliminating the Baltic nations for 50 years, along with occupying Eastern Europe and creating mayhem around the world. The Soviet Union likely would have collapsed in 1941-42 without critical US aid. One of my great uncles was a merchant marine sailor in World War II delivering aid from the US to Murmansk in the Soviet Union. I’ve always wondered if the allies would have been better off letting Germany and Russia bleed themselves to death and then pick up the pieces. One of those alternative histories for the fiction writers.
Interesting thought exercise. In fact that is kind of what postwar Soviet propaganda tried to convey, that the US was waiting to see who would win out between Germany and the USSR before committing to the war effort, and jumped in late on the side of the Soviets in order to end up on the winning side (this completely ignores the fact that the US entered the war in 1941). It also reminds me of the George C. Scott Patton movie (not sure how true this was), where he was of the mind that the Allies should have continued advancing against the Soviets once they'd occupied all of Germany and not stopped until they'd taken Moscow.
Yea, I never knew if that was true with Patton either. The Soviet and current Russian government propaganda conveniently leaves out the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 1939 and then then secret protocols carving up Eastern Europe, as well ad the wholesale massacres of Polish and Baltic nations civilians and key leaders.
My wife is Russian, and my father-in-law, who received a good Soviet education, literally thought that the US entered the war in 1944 with the invasion of Normandy! And yes, they completely ignore the events of 1939 through May 1941, and are silent regarding all the US materiel aid which as you mention was critical to their eventual success on the Eastern front.
The Soviets kept the Allies in the fight while the US was still getting its shit together in 42-43. Germany recklessly engaged in a war on two fronts, perhaps because they had forced the Tsar's forced to capitulate in WWI. Soviet resistance to the invasion forced Hitler to commit a huge amount of his army and airforce to the eastern front, which made fewer aircraft and crews available for the air campaign against Britain.
I generally agree with your comment and I could respond in great detail, having studied World War II history in college and after. Let me just say this as an addition and an alternative. Prior to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the Nazis could not defeat the UK navy and air force, so they could not conquer the UK. Even if Germany conquered the Soviet Union in 1941, once the US entered World War II, the Nazis were done. The US produced more war materials than all other countries in World War II combined. The war almost certainly would have taken longer, but there is no objective doubt the US and the UK would have been victorious even without one Soviet soldier entering the fight, even apart from nuclear weapons. Even if the Soviet Union allied with Germany, they never could have defeated the US and the UK, although that would have been an even longer and bloodier war. Of course once the US had nuclear bombs combined with the best bombers, the US could have destroyed all German and Russian cities and manufacturing capabilities and ended any war.
I agree with your conclusion about eventual victory, but even if Operation Sealion was just 'vaporware' for Hitler to dream about, would Britain have been able to stay in the fight? Britain was hanging on by a thread, both in terms of military capability and civilian morale, with cities being bombed and cargoes sunk left and right. "Barbarossa" gave the RAF breathing space to build fighters aircraft and train pilots to limit success of German bombers, imho. (Noe: not an expert on mil hist)
And at Treaty time in Croatia, both Churchill and Roosevelt were too ill to successfully prevent Stalin’s demands for dividing up Europe. The Poles had been key to winning the war in Europe, but Poland went to the USSR. A travesty in my view.
Soviet (not "Society" - c'mon, spellcheck, read my mind, not my typos) forces were the occupying power in the west; Roosevelt had the Pacific theater to contend with and the planned transfer of troops and materiel for the invasion of Japan (in case The Bomb was a fizzle).
And as you (I think it was) noted, both old men had nearly killed themselves with work and worry through the war.
We should take note of this in light of our current Prez's age & condition; the NC+SC is supposed to be carrying some of the weight but its staff has been reduced and may not have much say in planning. No man should be permitted to make these decisions concerning the life & death of the entire nation, in my NOT humble opinion.
We heartily agree with you.
Churchill was in favor of that, but Stalin was threatening peace talks with Germany if the allies didn’t invade Europe.
How much encouragement do you think he needs? Seriously, the man impulsively bought twitter for $40 billion to turn it into his personal megaphone. Better to just buy popcorn (lot's of popcorn!), and watch the spectacle.
I'm defintiely stocking up on the popcorn! Elon is so loony that I don't think anyone knows what the hell he's going to do next. Most likely he'll just apologize again to Trump and give up as soon as his government contracts and subsidies are threatened. Although if he really believes all the Epstein stuff maybe there will be some staying power to this.
As an example: Iranian democratic moderates who allied with radical Islamists to overthrow the Shah. Then, well, we all remember what happened (at least those of us of a certain age).
“Shared values”. You are correct.
And when push comes to shove, I think an overwhelming number of MAGA will stick with their cult favorite, DT.
Elon himself will probably fall into line again. His last "revolt" against Trump lasted all of a week.
Agree- look at how much they've happily gone along with for the past 10 years. Elon is insane enough to try this alternative party retribution gimmick. But he also has drug-assisted ADHD. So how long will he persist? Also, Trump is threatening to axe his government contracts. And WOW! - maybe even try to deport him.
That won't succeed, obviously but it further insults and fires Elon up. Elon's clearly in a white hot rage right now. But to say he's mercurial is like saying the Titanic had a bad day in the North Atlantic 113 years ago. He's an emotionally volatile boy-man. IMO, take great care in enemy of enemy alliances. More often, the cure was more deadly than the disease.
Because he’s, umm…a successful businessman??
Absolutely!
But, the enemy of my enemy can be my Useful Idiot, seems to me.
I’d also say be careful of what you wish for as in the end it may not blow up MAGA but end in a hostile takeover.
I get your point but your missing the big picture. We aren’t supporting Musk, just supporting the chaos.
Think of it as supporting an incumbents most hated competitor in a Republican primary race; you aren’t supporting the nut job running against the incumbent, as much as you’re hoping he will win the primary knowing he’d find it difficult to win the general, or to inflict enough damage on the incumbent to muddy to waters during the general.
Trump is the epitome of the “Chaos Agent.” To fight fire with fire, we need to rein chaos on the chaos agents so we can control the narrative. In short, we’re not supporting Musk, we’re supporting the chaos, or more aptly, the controlled chaos. IMHO…:)
Correct. We are not supporting (f)Elon just the damage he can inflict on the Felon and MAGA land, which (f)Elon is already doing by getting royally under the notoriously thin skin of the Orangutan (no insults to simians intended), and making him focus on this new shiny object that he does not like.
This is a good way to look at it. Support the dysfunction!
Mostly, support the splitting off of votes from Republicans in 2026 and specifically from Trump in 2028.
If Elon could peel off the Q-anon freaks, he'd ruin Trump's chances for reelection.
I will laugh at it and make fun of it, but I will not support it. They are capable of ratcheting the chaos up to 11 without my support.
Agreed, but like I said, we aren’t supporting it; we’re not giving resources or money…:)
"Release Chiang Kai-Musk!"
We don't need to become "friends" with Elon, we just need to take advantage of his enormous platform to sow discontent among the MAGA masses. That should be on the minds of all Dems and the resistance. Keep stoking the fire. With luck, those fools may burn their own house down.
Agreed... I see this as a 'please proceed' moment.
Well played, sir.
The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more, no less
Well, if Thug # 1 is intent on kicking my butt, and Thing #2 comes along and begins thunking #1's melon, I'm sure as hell not going to stop him.
Nope. But I’m also not going to ask him to have a beer with me if he’s got swastika tattoos either
Yep. Me neither.
Musk America Party or no Musk America Party, it might all be irrelevant if elections are corrupted or canceled. The underlying debate assumes regular elections which seem very much in doubt.
Agreed he can fuck all the way off. No collaboration or condoning anything he does.
But if he's going to keep lobbing bombs at maga and their dear leader, let him go nuts and we can sit on the sideline and enjoy the fallout.
I worry that anything Musk does will strip away votes not ONLY from MAGA wackadoodles, but also actual centrists that are frustrated with Democrats seeming failures.
Regardless of what you might think, this wouldn't work the way anyone thinks.
What failures? You mean at the polls? How will grabbing Democratic voters away from the party make the Democrats win? That seems like losing to me.
there's principles and values, and there's realpolitik. I personally don't think the realpolitik play here is worth the moral cost and moral hazard (so I agree with you), but I think anyone talking about using Musk to wedge the MAGA base is probably not making a moral or values-based argument.