California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said the governor was denied entry into a venue at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 21, after being invited to speak at the event due to “pressure” from the Trump administration.
Newsom had been scheduled to speak with Fortune at the USA House, Davos, a privately organized event, at the World Economic Forum, which has been recognized by the U.S. government as the nation’s headquarters in Davos.
It’s not a saying, it’s a thought-terminating cliche used to shut down discussions by making your opponent seem “unreasonable” under any circumstance. For example, one could say “We should appreciate having Donald Trump as president because Hitler caused a lot more harm. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” and be just as accurate as what you’re saying now.
What’s the scenario where they “become electable” in your mind, and what exactly is the path between here and there that involves electing more Bidens and Newsoms while being continuously told that anyone better is unelectable?
I don’t understand your Hitler example, it does not seem to be an example that fits the saying. How is Trump good to Hitler’s perfect? Or is it the reverse? Either way doesn’t make sense to me. Normally that saying is used in a context where someone is potentially getting some of what they actually want, because getting all of what they want is not feasible, and continuing to pursue all of what they want risks them not getting anything they want. In your example you seem to be using it like it means you get a choice of either a negative outcome or a worse negative outcome, which is not correct.
Trump is “good” because he’s not as bad as Hitler was. Therefore, we should be glad to have him despite him not being “perfect.” I’m not sure what’s unclear about that.
These two statements mean the exact same thing.
Trump hasn’t sent millions of Americans to the gas chamber (the “good”), and that’s better than the alternative right? If you put any value in this expression then how could you possibly disagree with this?
As long as a worse possibility exists or can be imagined, this saying can be used to justify quite literally anything, which is why it’s completely worthless outside of trying to make your opponent seem unreasonable in an argument regardless of the topic.
Those two statements do not mean the exact same thing. Trump being less shitty than Hitler doesn’t make Trump good, you are definitely misunderstanding the saying. It’s about trying to achieve goals, and the importance of knowing when you’ve maximized the achievement possible without ruining your chances of achieving the goal by pressing further. It doesn’t mean “I can imagine something worse, therefore this terrible choice I do not want is now alright with me”.
And in a scenario where the two outcomes are Trump or Hitler, Trump is the good achievement as that means millions of people don’t get murdered and the country is better off thereby maximizing progress toward our goal.
It sounds like you’re starting to understand the point. Newsom being less shitty than Trump doesn’t make Newsom good either, yet here we are being told that he is despite their shared ideologies simply because he has a (D) next to his name instead of an ®. “Vote blue no matter who.”
Yet that’s precisely how it’s being used.