KRUGMAN: Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle.

[kpete]

The important thing to realize, then, is that when Mr. Trump talks nonsense, he’s usually just offering a bombastic version of a position that’s widespread in his party. In fact, it’s remarkable how many ridiculous Trumpisms were previously espoused by Mitt Romney in 2012, from his claim that the true unemployment rate vastly exceeds official figures to his claim that he can bring prosperity by starting a trade war with China.

None of this should be taken as an excuse for Mr. Trump. He really is frighteningly uninformed; worse, he doesn’t appear to know what he doesn’t know. The point, instead, is that his blithe lack of knowledge largely follows from the know-nothing attitudes of the party he now leads.

Oh, and just for the record: No, it’s not the same on the other side of the aisle. You may dislike Hillary Clinton, you may disagree sharply with her policies, but she and the people around her do know their facts. Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/opinion/the-making-of-an-ignoramus.html?smid=tw-share

[thereismore]

1. Same ole "Hillary is not as bad as Trump." Krugman, reduced to this. nt

[harun]

2. Krugman jumped the shark.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

6. Well, I mean, she isn't, so.....

....unless your head is stuck up your ass, I don't understand where you are trying to go with this, other than to sew seeds of discontent here at DU.

[thereismore]

8. "seeds of discontent on DU?!" Where have you been lately? Hahaha, are you seriously trying to say

that calling someone on giving the weakest possible argument (lesser of two evils variant) for voting for someone is "sowing the seeds of discontent?" Seriously, there are whole redwoods of discontent already growing, and you are worried about seeds.

[fasttense]

35. Hey Krugman! Sanders is better than Trump TOO.

AND he's better informed on the issues than Hillary too.

[Squinch]

81. But he lost the primary.

[Scootaloo]

37. No, she's not. And Trump's not as bad as Idi Amin

"Not as bad as some other asshole" isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

Clinton is going to need more on her bill of sale than "Not Trump".

[Squinch]

54. What? That can't be! Wouldn't that make that person a troll? No, Tommy, I just WON'T

believe it...

... but it does seem odd, doesn't it?

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Same as what, or who?

In what way is trying to persuade people that the Republicans, and Trump in particular, are ignorant being 'reduced' to something?

[thereismore]

9. Krugman used to be an economist using semi-scientific arguments. Now he is reduced to peddling

a "lesser of two evils" argument. That is what "reduced to this" means.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. No, he's not using a 'lesser of two evils' argument

He supports Hillary, and has done for some time. What he's doing is saying that, even for people who don't like her, it should be obvious that what she says is grounded in reality, while Trump isn't. It's arguing against a media "both sides do it" approach to whether the parties are using facts or not.

[Agnosticsherbet]

14. +1

[sarge43]

18. Agree

Whatever else we can say about the contenders for the Democratic nomination, both are intelligent, grounded, well informed individuals. Further, both are emotionally and intellectually adults. Trump is none of these things. He is middle school bully who is a sick joke that could become a tragedy.

[charliea]

38. Exactly!

Hey I joined the Democratic party for the first time ever to vote for Bernie in the primaries (and hopefully the general election) but as Bernie said "On her worst day, Hillary Clinton is a hundred times better than any of the Republicans."

No I wont stay home and not vote if Hillary is the nominee, my vote may be tinged with a little more vote-against The OA (Orange A**hole) than would otherwise be the case if I got to vote for President Sanders, but I will be voting!

[lark]

28. Some people are so caught up in their own reality,

they see everything, regardless of content, through their own prisms. So this article about Trump being as wrong as the party that's nominating him, instead becomes something about Hillary.

[Hekate]

75. Krugman IS an economist who won the Nobel Prize. "Semi-scientific" is hardly the case.

[bjobotts]

22. That's not what he's saying...Dems are informed. Repubs are know nothing cons.

[lewebley3]

26. Krugman is right! GOP only about business not people!

[Alexa100]

36. So is Hillary

and even more so...DNC. Closely related to the RNC and the Bush cartel.

[lewebley3]

44. If Hillary put business firist she could be a GOP person: but She is a Dem so

you are wrong: We don't need people like you bashing the Dem's you
should go work for the GOP.

[Darb]

67. "Under the bus with you, Krugman!" Says the bernies, in unison.

weak

[n2doc]

3. Knowing 'the facts' is not the same as doing the right thing

As Dr. Krugman has repeatedly shown this primary season. Dr. Krugman has shown a distressing propensity for ignoring the facts and twisting them to fit his own agenda.

[rhett o rick]

4. If Trump gets elected, the Powers That Be, will "help" him. They will let him

do his strutting and pontificating but they will make the important decisions and he will be alright with that. He just wants to be king.

[AlbertCat]

16. PR president 3.0

The GOP thinks the president is just a PR job.

Reagan was PR cardboard cutout president 1.0
Bush was PR cardboard president 2.0
Trump will be 3.0


and Hillary will be PR President 1.5.

[rhett o rick]

48. I agree and disagree.

While the three idiot Republicons were cardboard cutouts, Hillary won't be. Sadly she will be a great asset to the Corporate Powers That Be. She is clearly someone that believes in corporate rule.

[lewebley3]

45. Trump will elected only by Sanders people support because of their bitterness

[rhett o rick]

50. We told you that Hillary didn't have a chance if she ran against Trump.

We warned that it was a possibility that those that Sen Sanders brought out that wanted to change a corrupt system, wouldn't participate in that corrupt system if Hillary is the nominee. But the Clinton Wing didn't heed the warning. Their hubris lead them to believe that they could demand that the Left fall in line.

So, we told you that if you didn't want Trump all you had to do was support Sen Sanders the true progressive.

Maybe you can blame Ralph Nader instead of looking in the mirror for who's responsible.

The corrupt system includes a DNC that clearly is working to elect Clinton. The corruption includes massive money laundering via super pacs. A corrupt system that embraces Citizens United. A corrupt system that includes a super delegate system that allows the DNC to literally buy their support.

[Squinch]

55. Oh, FFS, not another, "You'll be lost without me and I told you so" posts!

You guys have become ridiculously monotonous.

You lost. Deal with it and move on.

[rhett o rick]

59. First of all we haven't lost, secondly if Hillary wins the nomination we aint going

anywhere. Third you apparently missed the point. I am addressing the whining that is Hillary loses to Trump that it's all Sanders fault. We warned you not to take that road, but you did and it's on you.

[Squinch]

60. Yes, dear. You told us so. And then you told us you told us so. And then, over and over,

you told us that you told us that you told us so.

You are going to continue to tell us so. Which makes you silly. And completely useless to everyone who is engaged in the fight between Hillary and Trump.

As I say, you lost. What I probably should have said was, now get out of the way. The rest of us have moved on and are busy.

[rhett o rick]

62. Hubris will be the downfall of the Fat Cat backed Democratic Party Establishment.

The only reason you guys keep whining about "you lost" so go away," is that you know we haven't lost. Otherwise you wouldnt say anything. A battle between Trump and Hillary will be Oligarchy Thing 1 vs. Oligarchy Thing 2. The Koch Bros and Goldman-Sachs, Citibank are all rooting for Hillary, it's the company you chose. We are fighting to help the 2.5 million American Children homeless while the Goldman-Sachs Wing is fighting for bigger profits and more wealth in the Clinton coffers.

[Squinch]

63. Do you have any language other than ridiculous spoon fed talking points? This is rather pathetic.

As is the fact that you just can't see that you are fighting a battle that you lost weeks, if not months, ago, and that you lost BIG.

You aren't fighting for anything now. You are just beating a dead horse.

Have at it. You have made yourself completely irrelevant.

[libdem4life]

78. Excuse me, could you identify that which you are attempting to ridicule?

Take the win-lose dyad out of the conversation. Because, it is NOT over. There is a lot of political/legal water still running under the bridge and perhaps a Troll or two (See the Billy Goats Gruff children's story).

Now, then, if you would be so kind as to speak to facts, as you understand them.

Thank you.

[Squinch]

80. Ah! Now YOU'RE beating the dead horse! You'll have to do it without me.

PS: What did that poor horse ever do to you guys?

[lewebley3]

64. Hillary is crushing Sanders: no socialist has a chance in American politics

Sanders people are the ones that but Bush into office by
voting for Nader.

Then they want to blame Hillary for Bush, so that won't work.

[rhett o rick]

68. Wrong on all accounts. Sanders is giving Hillary the chosen one with help from the Establishment

the Big MOney Fat Cats and the Media, a run for her money. She is begging him to let her win or trying to shame him into quitting the game in the 8th inning.

Wrong about Nader also. Those that voted for Nader were voting against both Gore and Bush. Had Nader stayed home, they simply would not have voted. Some people refuse to participate in the corrupt culture of Big Money Fat Cat run government.

[lewebley3]

69. Excuses Sanders is losing because voters want Hillary not Sanders

[libdem4life]

79. And Hillary is getting funded by the Bushes. How does that fit into your

tidy little one sentence tome? I think that's where she feels most at home. The Donor Class tried with Jeb and failed, next stop, Hillary.

OK, now go for it.

[Surya Gayatri]

5. This verity should be repeated endlessly:

"...his blithe lack of knowledge largely follows from the know-nothing attitudes of the party he now leads."

[A Simple Game]

25. Krugman's batting average gets lower every time he speaks lately.

The Republicans are not know-nothings. They know exactly what they are doing, it's just that it doesn't benefit 99% of the electorate.

And Hillary may know stuff, but history shows she doesn't always do the right thing with the facts, or even worse she does know but does the "wrong" thing anyway because it benefits a certain group that never seems to include most of the people like me.

[lewebley3]

27. Krugman is just telling the truth: Sanders people have been wrong

about Hillary all long.

[Squinch]

56. Luckily he isn't playing baseball. Because he's GREAT on political analysis!

[BlueMTexpat]

11. This ...

Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance.

Too true.

[just4lulzidk]

12. this is old news, krug. for a while now, the republican definition of freedumb has been:

my lies are just as valid as your truths

[AlbertCat]

13. but she and the people around her do know their facts.

Like the Reagans were just great on AIDS.

If they do know their facts... then there really is no excuse for her.

[onecaliberal]

15. So paul, what does that make you? You supposedly know the facts, but continually mislead

and lie to the public so you can continue milking funds for your cash cow.

[lewebley3]

46. Paul doesn't lie: He tells the facts:

[kaleckim]

51. No, he doesn't

in the 1990's, when left of center heterodox economists were challenging him on free trade, he tried to rally the orthodoxy to undermine them and called on them to viciously attack the critics of "Ricardo's difficult idea" (I think that was the phrase he used). Who was right? He often attacks and brushes aside economists, often on the left, that think differently than he does. He got into a debate with Steve Keen about how finance and the monetary system works, he believes in something that is the opposite of reality, and has been for centuries. He claims, because he believes in something called the "loanable funds" theory. He recently tared and feathered the economist Friedman for using models orthodox economists like Krugman uses to run the numbers on Sanders plan. He was attacked in unprofessional and dishonest ways, and many esteemed economists such as James Galbraith and Bill Black were outraged by his behavior and demanded an apology. Then there is his propaganda regarding the "berniebros" BS. He has no shame and while he is moderately better than economists to his right, he's also often full of $hit.

If anyone is interested, there's tons others.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html

"Krugman and His Gang’s Libeling of Economist Gerald Friedman for Finding That Conventional Models Show That Sanders Plan Could Work"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/04/pilkington-krugman-critique-of-the-critics.html

"Philip Pilkington: “The Chosen Ones” – Krugman’s Critique of the Critics"

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/01/krugmans-cowardly-attack-on-david-dayen-over-krugmans-misrepresentation-of-sanders-financial-reforms.html

"Krugman’s Cowardly, Dishonest Attack on David Dayen Over Krugman’s Misrepresentation of Sanders’ Financial Reforms"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/19/1487878/-Joint-Economic-Committee-Executive-Director-Calls-Out-Krugman-et-al-Over-Hit-Piece

"Krugman, et al, Called Out by Former JEC Executive Director, James Galbraith, Over Hit Piece"

[jalan48]

17. It's the old "The Republicans are worse" argument.

It's got to the point where the Republicans have to be full blown Fascist to be worse than the Democrats. The Reagan Revolution has succeeded!

[maxsolomon]

30. Yeah, except they are worse. Much much worse.

Shut-down-the-government-if-they-don't-get-their-way worse. Start pointless decades-long-wars worse. Shamelessly-deny-basic-science-whenever-profit-is-at-stake worse.

You love Sanders, but have some perspective and drop the hyperbole. Not every Democrat in office is a DINO.

I can't believe I have to make this case on DU.

[jalan48]

40. Rah! Rah! Go team!

[maxsolomon]

49. please refer to the name of this website

if there was no difference, you wouldn't be here.

[jalan48]

53. The difference? Today? Yesterday? Tomorrow?

That is the question my friend.

[maxsolomon]

72. All 3

If there is no difference, why does the GOP Congress obstruct Obama at every turn?

[jalan48]

73. Kabuki Theater?

[lewebley3]

31. The truth about GOP is old and its still true!

[lewebley3]

47. Democrats party is all the people have ,stop bashing until after the election

Last edited Wed May 11, 2016, 04:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[kaleckim]

52. No

that isn't how democracy works and it doesn't help any party to provide cover for things you shouldn't. You don't make excuses for a friend that is acting irresponsibly, you challenge them and try to get them to stop. The same is true of a political party. Besides, the Democrats' record on economic issues has been horrific in recent decades, they've been little more than less bad than the Republicans. How does it benefit most people to provide cover for that?

[hfojvt]

19. this coming from Krugman

a man who LIED about the Obama/Bush tax cuts.

Yeah, he knew the facts, he just chose to spin them the other way. He chose to call permanent tax cuts for the rich, which actually is what happened, and spin them as tax increases on the rich.

Clinton, of course, will probably again (like she did in 2008) promote "middle class tax cuts" most of which will go to the richest 20%.

And Krugman will give her a large pass on that. Just like he did for Obama.

[lewebley3]

34. The Clinton's raised taxes on the rich, and rebuilt the mid Class

The Clinton's were in office 16 years ago: you have confused
Bush years and Sanders people not voting in off years.

Things are the way they are because of the GOP

[GulfCoast66]

42. Only one correction

The Clinton's did not raise taxes just like the Clinton's did not enact the 1994 crime bill. That was President Bill Clinton. We have no idea how Hillary felt. What was she going to do, come out against the her husband in public? I lived in Arkansas in the 70s and 80s. It was well known that Hillary is more liberal than Bill.

It burns my ass that so many people on a liberal website continue to define a strong woman by her husband's actions.

The one policy issue she had power on was her healthcare initiative which created a plan way more progressive than Obama care. And it was defeated by a Democratic Congress.

[lewebley3]

43. The Crime bill was agreed to by the black caucus and Sander voted for it.

[Squinch]

57. They always seem to forget about this...

[hfojvt]

70. no, it was NOT the GOP who made most of the tax cuts permenent

that was Obama and the Democrats.

And it was not the GOP who lied to the American public about those facts, and that massive betrayal. That was Krugman, Obama, and the Democrats.

Sad, but true. Only Tom Harkin started an 11th hour token resistance. Supposed progressives like Tammy Baldwin, Elizabeth Warren (both elected to the Senate in 2012) and Al Franken said nothing. Even the legendary Bernie Sanders voted for that monstrosity.

And Hillary Clinton, she ran for President in 2007-8 and in doing so a) she proposed many supposedly "middle class tax cuts" and b) she opposed raising the cap on Social Security because to do so, in her words, would be 'a trillion dollar tax increase on the middle class'.

As for Bill. Yes, everybody seems to remember his tax increases of 1993, but they have forgotten his tax cuts of 1998. Tax cuts for the rich combined with tax increases for the poor. Analyzed at the link here http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2665533

[lewebley3]

71. The GOP cut the taxes in the 1st place with Regan and then with Bush

[stupidicus]

20. they are the same insomuch as

they both play the Pied Piper tune in a way to maximize followers. Given the respective composition of supporters and what has traditionally tripped their triggers, that simply means HC has to be more smartly selective with her deceptions and frequency of their use.

BS supporters are those who no longer buy Clinton bs. The biggest diff is that she's likely as dishonest as she can be under the circumstances whereas he can be as dishonest as he needs or wants to be without any fear of reprisal.

[LiberalLovinLug]

29. Exactly

"one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance"

and one party has cornered the market in half-cooked ignorance. As much as she can get away with. Because the truth of it is that people want to hear what they want to believe. But Democrats are in general smarter and appreciate fact based positions, so they must be a little more careful and skirt that line.

Trump and the Republicans have no shame left at all. So they will say ANYTHING to get elected. A lot of people are in dire straights BECAUSE of republican policies and obstruction. But they listen to the radio or TV and hear 24/7 that it is all the Democrats fault. And because they have a visceral need to blame someone, anyone, they don't bother, or are too lazy, or stupid to check the facts for themselves. Because they've convinced themselves that they don't have to. But its more like they don't want to find any other point of view because it may dampen their anger and what they want is to get even angrier.

So that only means that the GOP has left most of the fact field empty with them crowding the far right end. The New Democrats can get away with so much more these days in regards to, if not outright lying, then omitting talking about the real facts behind the financial crash, or the details of the TPP, or playing with the idea of cutting SS. They still come out much less insane.

[stupidicus]

39. you know it

things have been rotten in our Denmark for a long time already, and it simply amazes me still how many have no figurative olfactory sense in ther matter

It's like they are choosing to remain oblivious to the good cop/bad cop, faux duopoly, Janus-like condition we ALL suffer from.

[w4rma]

21. It would appear that a lot of people, including myself, have quit reading Krugman.

Everyone who has been dishonestly pushing Clinton during the primaries are snake-oil salesfolk. Everyone.

FYI: Obviously his point about Republicans being ignorant is accurate.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. What about the people who honestly 'push' Clinton?

You're just stating a tautology. If they're dishonest, then of course they're "snake-oil salesfolk". But you don't say how you go about telling people who truly support Hillary from those who are just pretending to. Personally, I think pretty much everyone who says they support her really does. It's not worth worrying about the tiny percentage who are lying about it.

[CobaltBlue]

24. Paul Krugman will never again be given consideration by me.

[maxsolomon]

33. THIS was the straw that broke the camel's back?

How dare he advocate for Democrats over Trump! That's it!

[Squinch]

61. That seems to really enrage some of the folks here on Democratic Underground. Go figure.

[Squinch]

58. I'm sure he's heartbroken. Because you were his favorite.

[greatlaurel]

41. Great post. Krugman really explains the problem with the GOP & Trump

Thanks for the link!

[Rex]

65. Over 90% of our national debt was created by the GOP. Both parties like to do things differently.

The Dems have out of necessity, become the party of conservation (just a stop gap measure, trying to prevent wholesale destruction of the nation by the GOP). The GOP, as always, uses the destructive 'spend and borrow' method. Fails year after year, yet it works for the ever wealthy & greedy.

Just remember, it has been and always will be Grand Old Plutocracy.

[AgadorSparticus]

66. +1,000,000

"Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom, but in this election, one party has largely cornered the market in raw ignorance."<--deserves an award.

[Hekate]

74. Krugman -- still the voice of sanity and reason after all these years

[dchill]

76. "Oh, and just for the record: "

That certainly makes it officially right and true! Treasury Secretary, you think?

[MisterP]

77. Clinton's sliding against him, Sanders steady--everyone's sick of this Beltwayer delusion

that enough fingerwagging will reverse the numbers
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-sanders 39-51
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton 39-43

we're sick of being told that the party has the right to cut its own throat like this