Paul Krugman has entered the John Lewis debate on civil rights.
So far, I have only seen one person make total sense of the discussion, and we will get to that in a moment.
Meanwhile, those interested in another mindless rant from economist Paul Krugman may wish to consider With All Due Disrespect.
As a young man, Congressman John Lewis, who represents most of Atlanta, literally put his life on the line in pursuit of justice. As a key civil rights leader, he endured multiple beatings. Most famously, he led the demonstration that came to be known as Bloody Sunday, suffering a fractured skull at the hands of state troopers. Public outrage over that day’s violence helped lead to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act.
Now Mr. Lewis says that he won’t attend the inauguration of Donald Trump, whom he regards as an illegitimate president.
As you might expect, this statement provoked a hysterical, slanderous reaction from the president-elect – who, of course, got his start in national politics by repeatedly, falsely questioning President Obama’s right to hold office.
But let’s not talk about Mr. Trump’s ravings. Instead, let’s ask whether Mr. Lewis was right to say what he said. Is it O.K., morally and politically, to declare the man about to move into the White House illegitimate?
Yes, it is. In fact, it’s an act of patriotism.
By any reasonable standard, the 2016 election was deeply tainted. It wasn’t just the effects of Russian intervention on Mr. Trump’s behalf; Hillary Clinton would almost surely have won if the F.B.I. hadn’t conveyed the false impression that it had damaging new information about her, just days before the vote. This was grotesque, delegitimizing malfeasance, especially in contrast with the agency’s refusal to discuss the Russia connection.
Was there even more to it? Did the Trump campaign actively coordinate with a foreign power? Did a cabal within the F.B.I. deliberately slow-walk investigations into that possibility? Are the lurid tales about adventures in Moscow true? We don’t know, although Mr. Trump’s creepy obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin makes it hard to dismiss these allegations. Even given what we do know, however, no previous U.S. president-elect has had less right to the title. So why shouldn’t we question his legitimacy?
Spreading Fake News Via Questions
Krugman cleverly does not accuse Trump directly, he just raises disproved questions, while adding “Mr. Trump’s creepy obsequiousness to Vladimir Putin makes it hard to dismiss these allegations.”
The idea that Trump actively coordinated with a foreign power to “steal the election” is ridiculous. Even our intelligence department blasted that dossier.
Conclusion: Krugman is purposely spreading fake news, by means of questions.
As long as Krugman is asking questions, I have some questions of my own.
- When Paul Kruman won the Nobel prize, did he plagiarize the material?
- Is is true Paul Krugman has three illegitimate kids?
These questions are no more sleazy than the ones Krugman asked.
Trump’s response to Lewis was decidedly poor. Caroline Baum made a few short, coherent, and accurate responses to Lewis and Trump.
Questioning Krugman’s Sanity
By purposely spreading fake news via questions, Krugman acts just like the man he accuses.
In regards to Krugman’s sanity, please recall that Krugman proposed saving the economic world via means of a fake space alien threat. Yes, I am serious, links below.
November 12, 2016: Krugman Admits He Is Clueless. That Progress will be Short-Lived
November 21, 2016: Paul Krugman, Who Proposed Fight with Fake Outer Space Aliens to Stimulate the Economy, Now Worried About Quality of Trump’s Spending
As an act of patriotism, it makes sense to question Krugman’s sanity, not because of Lewis or Trump, but because of continual economic idiocy.
Mike “Mish” Shedlock
For more Krugman bashing, go to the Tom Woods site. Each week he and Bob Murphy do a show called Contra Krugman where they point out the latest hypocrisies and lies of their favorite cartoon economist.
The problem for Krugman is that he hasn’t got the imagination to go beyond a view where he is correct and has the answers for everything.
He is a narcissist and his attempts to cast shadows with the use of ‘questions’ it the tactic of intellectual midgets.
The delegitimising of a democratic process by the losers is concerning. Mostly stoked by a press which lost its journalistic integrity long ago and pursued more of a ‘soft porn’ approach to improve ratings.
Crazy mad. The fake news is all about blame shifting ,and Krugman is on board. I heard he was angling for a senior position in a Clinton administration, so he’s hardly likely to support anything Trump does.
As to Lewis. He misspoke and copped it. But they need to mend fences now.
He doesn’t write that stuff for the NYT. His wife does.
Look her up.
John Lewis said Trump is not a legitimate president, so therefore this will be the first time in his congressional career that he won’t be attending a presidential inauguration.
Wrong. He also didn’t attend the inauguration of Bush Jr. because (drum roll, please) he didn’t find him to be “a legitimate president” either.
He’s done it twice.
Does it really matter what Krugman thinks? Most Americans don’t even know who he is. My guess is that if 100 people on the street were asked “Who is Paul Krugman?” that 90 wouldn’t have a clue. And I think I’m being generous. Moreover, chances are most of those who have heard of him don’t follow him and couldn’t care less about his opinion on politics. Go away, Paul. You’re obsolete.
I realize that Krugman amuses some people. But why even give him print?
Regardless of his personal feelings about Trump, as a Congressman, Lewis should show outward respect for the Office of the President by acknowledging that Trump is our Commander in Chief and by participating in the inaugural events. His reluctance to accept reality tells me that he’s a small and petty man. He needs to get over his butthurt.
John Duhon said:
I love Krugman. I thought he was great on The Odd Couple.
Kuldip Singh said:
The first rule in problem solving – identify the problem –
“Many years ago, I asked my Spiritual Master, “All the chaos in this world, who is responsible for it?”
The Master replied,”2 classes of people who live by the principle of divide and rule. One is politicians and the other preachers.”
We need to find people who are neither politicians nor preachers to run this World. These leaders would have to be truly Spiritual Leaders.
A Muslim lady asked my Spiritual Master, “What is the difference between Islam and the Sikh religion?”
The Master replied, “There is no difference.”
The lady was astounded at this reply and asked, ” Master, how can you say this”
The Master replied, “My daughter, I say this, simply because the Truth is One. It is only our form of worship which is different.”
There is no difference between Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, the Sikh religion, and other mainstream religions.
According to the Master, the biggest sin a human being can commit is to hurt another human being.
A few years ago, when 2012 was trending, on a Financial blog, somebody asked, “Will the world come to an end in 2012?” The blogger replied, “No, the world will not come to an end in 2012, but the world as we know it will cease to exist.”
I take this to mean that wars, religious bigotry, hatred, suffering etc will come to an end.
We are seeing the beginning of the end of falsehood and the commencement of the age of righteousness.
Short term there will be pain. Lots of pain. Long term –There will be peace on earth and goodwill towards all mankind.
The future of Planet Earth is indeed very bright.
A New World Order is being created. This World Order will be led by truly Spiritual
Leaders. These leaders cannot be intimidated or bought.( GS and their ilk, be warned.) These leaders will bring about the change in thinking needed to sort out the problems the World is currently facing.
The future is indeed very bright. Meanwhile, we will have to continue suffering the pain.
How did Krugman get the Nobel?
He never met a stimulus or bubble he didn’t love so to create a nobel-prize-winning economist always proposing stimulus and loving bubbles he was given the prize.
Nobel prize is the source of Krugman’s “authority” and he is useful idiot that gets to keep his plum job teaching his “ideas” and his nice pulpit at NYT publicizing his ideas because he speaks the bubble loving and stimulus loving ideas that certain people want cheered always in order to keep making more and more profits and getting a bigger and bigger share of productivity of nations in their pockets through financialization of everything and continuously increasing debt levels of governments and debt levels of companies and debt-levels of people faster than GDP increases.
Anybody taking Krugman seriously after the fake space alien invasion stimulus idea he presented has mush for brains.
It is economically impossible to increase debts faster than GDP for a long period of time because doing that makes a huge crash inevitable and the “wealth” you have is fake with no way to know it’s true value as long as everything is based on increasing debt levels to unsustainable levels.
How did Obama get the Nobel?
He faked it til he mak’ed it!
And a Nobel Peace Prize at that!
The imposter dropped over 26,000 bombs on 7 different nations in 2016!
But no one in the media speaks of the contradiction.
They are too busy trashing Trump!
Breaking: I heard that Paul Krugman stopped beating his wife *years* ago. Let us all hope this is true.
Trump was not wrong. Everything he tweeted was true….
exactly. can krugman prove that trump’s tweets were wrong? lewis’s district is a disaster
Krugman is an idiot who is an overrated Keynesian. He has been insulted the world over by several persons who do not share his views.
Old Guy said:
Krugman is just upset he will no longer apart of the “in” crowd and is melting down. He was/is a pundit of the Obama administration. His Nobel prize was in trade. I guess because of this many believe he is the smartest man in the room. Well his pan has not worked and of course it is because we have not printed enough money into existence. Now he is moaning about his being on the outside of the equation.
John Lewis started this crap by stating on national media he thought Trump was an illegitimate president. Trump defends himself and that is not OK in the media and with Lewis. You see we have become so inclined to be politically correct even defending yourself is a crime. A civil rights hero my arse. He made a statement that quite honestly I find deplorable. But it is not OK for Trump to reply. Trump needs to use better word selection. I will not argue that point but this crap of trust government officials making this goat rope a bigger goat rope is getting old.
Political Correctness is something the progressives designed to shut people up when they disagree with their world view or ideas. When that fails they label you as clearly demonstrated by Hillary’s and John Lewis. They call themselves tolerant of other people until you disagree with them, then you are fair game for name calling from their side first. Grow up people and hat does include Trump. But he dos have a right to defend himself nd the Dems and their media pundits cannot handle it. Instead they cry rivers of tear and call names.
Krugman’s job is to put enough “analysis” on data to affirm the standard leftist model so that the bien pensant can tranquilly go about their lives until TSHTF – at which point they can rest assured that it is all someone else’s fault.
As a matter of fact, that is the same job description for 99% of all mainstream commentators.
Was Paul Krugman admitted to the NYC psychiatric ward last November 8th? Did he really try to change the way real world economics works? Is he yet another of Taleb’s ‘Intellectual yet Idiot’ (AKA “IYI”)? Did he marry a writer so he didn’t have to bother with the NYT or was she underage at the time? Does he eat pizza? These and many more questions come up when discussing Paul Krugman on the internet.
Mike Chellman said:
I opposed Trump though out the primaries. But if I knew that he would tell the truth about John Louis, the lying, un american, uncle tom of the democratic party, I would have voted for him above all others on that fact alone.
As several have noted “Because Lewis was beaten up by a bunch of Democrats fifty years ago, we’re supposed to buy in to his lies about Republicans today?”
JOHN EAST said:
I beg to differ that Trump’s response should have been to highlight the veracity of the leaks rather than to deny their source because had he done this then the traitorous liars would have won. There response would have been, “See, Trump is not disputing our claim that the Ruskies did it so it must be true – election void.”
If an ambitious American reporter unearthed the story the Russians are accused of revealing, wouldn’t that be regarded as an important, praiseworthy scoop? That’s what good, muck-racking journalists are paid for. Even if it this action was conducive with Russian objectives, it would still be good, important journalism, as long as it was factually accurate, which nobody is denying.
Trump is coming out with a new book “Everything you were thinking but afraid to say”. Coming to a media outlet near you, one tweet at a time.
Sorry Mish, I can’t question his sanity.
Krugman is a Fake Economist. Paid to propagandize the Oligarchy Party line. Literally ALL practitioners of the Dismal Science” are fakes – they can’t even match your prediction record! They are psuedoscientific frauds, witch doctors acting as “public intellectuals” as camouflage for evil people doing evil things while pretending to be the big.gang.guv.
They are the “economy” version of Gorge Soron’s Rent-a-Riots, since keeping the subject serf population pacified with words is FAR cheaper than going to war with them.
Ron J said:
Krugman: “Is it O.K., morally and politically, to declare the man about to move into the White House illegitimate?”
NO. 270+ electoral votes declare legitimacy. Krugman has no moral or political grounds. according to evidence presented by Comey, Hillary broke the law and was disqualified by U.S. code, from holding public office. Hillary was the illegitimate candidate. Krugman was silent.
Politically, if Krugman says it is OK to declare Trump illegitimate, it is OK to then declare the next Democratic Party winner illegitimate, as well, for any reason someone wants to claim.
What Krugman should really be concerned about is that he is destroying his legitimacy as an economist.
Robert D said:
There is verifiable proof from the DNC emails that Hillary was an illegitimate nominee and that she cheated by getting questions from DNC operative Donna Brazile for the CNN debate.
There is no verifiable proof that the Russians did anything to support Trump.
So the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics wants to go after Trump with no evidence and ignores the evidence that Hillary cheated. Verifiable insanity.
WRT Rep. John Lewis, the democrat policies of the last 50 years have destroyed the African American community in this country, and Rep. Lewis approved of all of them.
Mox Nix said:
So, ‘Russia’ influenced the election by exposing the truth behind illegal DNC dealings. Yeah, I think alot of people have a real legitimate problem with this. Starting with Bernie and his supporters.
Really, I don’t see how Democrap incompetence and greed de-legitimizes a Trump presidency.
This will make a great mini-series some day. And I propose that they use the SNL cast to make it.
People are making Hitler comparisons here right and left, but I believe that we just dodged a Nixon 2.0 experience by keeping cankles out of the White House.
Mumu Bobby said:
Isn’t Krugman the guy that starts off most pieces with an implied ‘everything I’ve ever said before, fahgetaboutit, that guy didn’t know what he was talking about’?
trump was right. lewis’s district is a mess and lewis should focus on helping those he represents and hasn’t done enough for them.
the notion that because lewis did something great 50 years ago means that trump can’t question lewis’s current performance is ridiculous
Ryan Schaap said:
Krugman is certainly not a historian. In 1824, John Quincy Adams was elected by Congress despite losing both the electoral and popular vote to Andrew Jackson. Due to the number of candidates, no one received a majority of electoral votes so the election was decided by Congress. Also, in 1876 (Tilden or blood election) the electors from 3 Southern states and one Oregon elector were disputed. Tilden won the popular vote and only needed one of the 20 available electors for a majority in the electoral college. Despite this, Rutherford Hayes became president. Even recently, George W. won in 2000 by a couple hundred votes in Florida in a case ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. By comparison, Trump won, in electoral college terms, by a landslide. I point this out because Krugman’s false narrative (“no previous US president-elect has had less right to the title”) dupes people into believing this is an outrageous historical aberration necessitating an equally outrageous response such as the rioting we saw after the election. The fact is close elections are fairly common and even more likely when neither candidate is well liked.
PK believes that banks merely intermediate between savers and borrowers. He believes that banks don’t create new money by lending. This is 97% utter nonsense. That’s all you need to know about Krugman.