fit not quote from, other Myerson's bit quoted in the article.

For example, the article, after quoting the garbage you quoted, plus a bit more from Myerson's blood brother and Green Party saboteur Ted Glick, louisproyect goes on to say (after outlining the sad sorry history of these two "leftists"):

So what does all this have to do with the rise of Adolph Hitler? The answer is nothing at all. Hitler is invoked as a kind of bogeyman to frighten liberals. He serves the same purpose as a warning from your parents when you were six years old. If you don’t brush your teeth, the bogeyman will get you. Now it is if you don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, der Führer Donald Trump will get you.

He refutes their points (and by extension this diarist's) by noting the real history of the German Social Democrats:

Like the Democratic Party, the German Socialists cut deals with the opposition rightwing parties to stay in power. In effect, they were the Clinton and Obamas of their day. In 1928, the Socialists were part of a coalition government that allowed the SP Chancellor Hermann Müller to carry out what amounted to the same kind of sell-out policies that characterized Tony Blair and Bernard Hollande’s nominally working-class governments.

It's this selling out that leads to fascism, that summoned a Donald Trump to arise from the pit. Half-measures and accommodations to a financial and business elite that have been all about dick-measuring by way of their stock prices and P/E ratios rather than by production output and new hires (i.e. real economic activity that benefits workers and workers-as-consumers in their neighborhoods, allowing them to build and thrive in the technological and demographic blizzard now overtaking their previously reliable employment and earnings opportunities) won't cut it anymore as the half-assed crap they call "progressive" simply doesn't work, and in fact impoverishes many.

louisproyect concludes:

Now of course we are in a period hardly resembling the final days of the Weimar Republic. The good news is that a fascist takeover is highly unlikely since parliamentary democracy is more than adequate to keep the working class under control. The bad news, on the other hand, is that the left is so inconsequential and the trade unions so weak that there is no need for fascism.

But who knows? Another decade or so of declining wages and cop killings of Black people might precipitate the rise of a left party that has learned to avoid the reformist stupidity of the German SP and the suicidal ultra-leftism of the Stalinists. It is highly likely that people like Harold Meyerson and Ted Glick will be as hostile to it as they are to Jill Stein’s campaign today. Despite their foolishness, we should soldier on to final victory. The fate of humanity rests on it.

In other words, no, it wasn't worth considering.

A vote for Clinton is a vote for President Trump.

You made this bed, sleep in it.

Is a vote for despotism. Yes, I see elements of fascism in both, but neither is a purist.

That being said, I think many here missed the intention of the diary. From the title "something worth considering despite TOP's Hillarists", to the link title " misusing German history to scare...", to the FYI intro.

Seems many at this site are still carrying the kos chip on their shoulder. Some the size of railroad ties. Leave your feelings about that place in the past. Don't rail against it so hard you, too, become an echo chamber you claim to abhor.

I'm reasonably sure annilie is the same Ann Summers at Flowers for Socrates. I've seen the same article posted at different sites under the two names. I've followed Ann at Flowers for quite awhile. She is hardly the corporatist hillbot she is being painted with in this comment thread.

Calling a mouse tyrannosaur Rex doesn't make it one no matter how many people say it is.

and all we've got are opponents who continue to be even more batsh*t crazy. At some point this has to stop; all that is happening is more right wing agenda from both parties. I don't recognize the Republicans anymore and I recognize the Democrats as Rockefeller Republicans. Odds are this may be my last Presidential Election and I'll be damned if I want to continue this farce.

Last refuge of the morally and intellectually bankrupt lesser-evilists. Sorry, not buying. This isn't about Sensible Hillary vs. Toxic Donald. It's about an incredibly cynical and dysfunctional political system that offers voters a bracing choice of which duopoly candidate is tasked with the job of screwing them over.

Bernie said this back in 1989. Wonder what has changed for him between then and now? The Democrats always depict the Republican candidate as the Anti-Christ who will bring about the end of civilization as we know it. Do their current cries of wolf mean that this time there is a real wolf? I agree with Jill Stein - most of what people fear from Donald has already been delivered by Hillary.

Regardless of the inevitable hackery from die-hard Hillbots, this year a great many of us will choose to vote for what we support, as opposed to against what we oppose. If the D's were really that intent on stopping the supposed Anti-Christ Trump, then surely they would have put forward a more palatable candidate than Hillary Clinton.

I upvoted the essay thinking it was by an essayist poking fun at how desperate and stupid the Clinton folks are getting but then gathered from the comments that it's actually a guilt trip attempt to get votes for Hillary. Sheesh!

but the Democratic establishment feared Bernie more than they feared Trump. So they're getting what they asked for.

On a more cheerful note, here's an unscientific internet poll:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/06/poll_will_you_vote_for_hill...
Vote and look at the Jill Stein numbers. [happy smile]