Of course. And I was correct. So? I don't know whether Edelman endorsed Sanders either. Maybe he endorsed Clinton, or even some Republican (he is one of those Wall Street pirates). But all three of those guys, and several other such, have generally assessed Sanders's economic proposals as being the best in the running. Of course. Like I said: no economic policy comparison with Clinton appears in that Krugman essay you quoted. You keep quoting vague praise of Clinton in general and specific but relatively minor criticism of a couple of Sanders's proposals. Nowhere in there is a comparison of Sanders's and Clinton's economic agenda or proposals. If you read between the lines, and you are familiar with Krugman's writing, you can see hints that Sanders's economic proposals are better, according to Krugman. And elsewhere he has written extensively on the superiority of single payer health care, the need to seriously reform banking regulation in the US, and so forth, all of which favors Sanders's economic proposals. But you can't see the comparison made, because he doesn't make it. The omission is evident. So? One would hope he didn't endorse actually bad policy. Sure. He thinks Bernie is idealistic, and proposing radical change he cannot deliver. That's apparently why Krugman is endorsing Clinton - he's bought the line that she is effective and capable. So?
LOL.... No, what you are is incredibly dishonest. You were and are clearly and demonstrably wrong. Where have you been for the last several posts? Are you suffering from some sort of dementia or are you just that dishonest? Unfortunately, for you people are not as stupid as you need them to be. Denial isn't a river in Egypt. The last several posts speak for themselves. Krugman's writing speaks for itself. You are blatantly dishonest, and you are consistently dishonest. Your assertions are just not true. You are just as dishonest, if not more so, as the right wing kooks you like to rail about. Contrary to your assertion, Krugman clearly described Bernie's economic plans as "disturbing" and clearly stated Hillary's policies were generally good. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hillary-2016.155821/#post-3371130
He described his "positions" as disturbing, because he thought they were unrealistic and promoted via "cheap shots". That is a political, or even rhetorical, not an economic, analysis. He did not compare the economic policies themselves with Clinton's. Nothing there is contrary to my assertion. You have not quoted a single paragraph in which Krugman compares Sanders's economic agenda and proposals to Clinton's. That's because he hasn't, in the one link you posted. You have to read more of his writings, or read between the lines in the one you quoted, for his praise of serious banking reform, praise of single payer health insurance, praise of increasingly progressive income taxation, etc and so forth, that I based my ordinary and unexceptional observation on. Consider what you gain, btw, if you do find - somewhere - that Krugman has compared Sanders and Clinton economic proposals and found Clinton's actually better - not just more realistically enactable in a poisoned climate or the like, but better for the country all else equal (you can't find that, but say you do). You still have all those other economists who favor Sanders's economic proposals. You still have Sanders's policies and agencda with serious backing from the opinions of major economists and financiers, praised as sound and the best in the running. Do you think Krugman's omission of direct comparison was deliberate, or an oversight?
Not "back Sanders" - leave the politics out of it. They assess his economic proposals and agenda as the best of the Presidential candidates. You can run across them all over the place. I mentioned Krugman, Edelman, and Reich. Edelman and Krugman are missing from this list: https://berniesanders.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Wall-St-Letter-1.pdf Here's an overview without a comparison, but fairly apolitical: https://www.quora.com/What-do-economists-think-about-Bernie-Sanders-12-point-economic-plan That should be enough to get you started. Google is your friend.
Well, not surprisingly, there is more than that missing from your list. You left out the whole "economics part" - remember your original assertion? This is about Bernie's economic plans - remember? The issue isn't about whither there should be Wall Street reforms or the reinstatement of Glass-Steagal. Hillary supports those reforms. I support those reforms, but that's not the issue here. As Krugman pointed out, the issues are much larger than just restoring Glass-Steagal. LOL,,,,yeah. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Did you even read your Quara reference? That isn't even a start. That's a diversion and another of your many misrepresentations. You wrote, "Several professional and solidly accomplished economists and financiers have weighed in - Krugman, Adelmann, Reich, etc - and the general assessment is that Sanders's declared economic program is the soundest. His numbers add up better than anyone else's in the running, and he's addressing the critical issues.". So where are these "Several professional ans solidly accomplished economists" you claim have declared Sanders's economic program as the best? Your assertion that Krugman made that claim have been repeatedly disproved. Far from claiming Sanders's plan as the soundest, Krugman has described Sanders's economic plan as "disturbing".
No, he didn't. He described Sanders's "positioning" as disturbing - with cheap shots and stuff. And the spin-out becomes total. Clinton does not support the banking and financial reforms Sanders favors, or the health insurance setup he favors, or the tax structures he favors, or the trade and treaty provisions he favors, and so forth. In each case, with the possible exception of trade and treaty provisions (he is not clear on his favoritism in that matter) Sanders's proposals are more similar to Krugman's best practice recommendations than Clinton's. This may be why he omits comparing the economic policies of Sanders and Clinton side by side, when he's endorsing Clinton - an odd omission, don't you think?
Well, here is the thing - ignoring the fact Krugman took no cheap shots - you had said Krugman supported Sanders's economic policies, and clearly he doesn't as you have now admitted. He described Sanders's economic policies as "dangerous". That isn't an endorsement of Sanders's economic policies as you have asserted. You can't have it both ways. You just contradicted yourself yet again. Krugman described Sanders's economic plans as dangerous. So you think Krugman's description of Sanders's economic policy as dangerous is an endorsement? Krugman went even further and described Hillary's policies as "good" and stated policy was her strength. Clinton wants banking and financial reforms too. She favors Obamacare reforms. However, she doesn't support single payer healthcare as does Bernie. Bernie lives in an idealized world. There is nothing wrong with ideals. But then there is reality. At some point idealism must meet reality and the practical must win, because we don't live in an idealized world. Hillary lives in the world of what is possible...what is practical and what can be accomplished. Bernie lives in an idealized world. Bernie is a dreamer, and that's a problem for Bernie and his followers. Idealism by itself is "dangerous" and a recipe for failure (e.g. communism). Idealism as represented by Sanders and the practical as represented by Hillary are complementary. We need dreamers. We need people like Bernie. But we also need people like Hillary, people who can get things done. Here is the bottom line, you made shit up again, and now you are desperately running around trying to find something to support your beliefs.
Krugman has supported Sanders's economic policies. He continues to describe economic policies similar to Sanders's as better. No, he didn't. "actually pretty good" is the quote, which is the proper tone of mild surprise, given her economic and foreign policy track record - which is pretty bad. The game she talks is sort of ok, which is mildly surprising to people familiar with her record of action, but not that surprising to people familiar with her standard walk from the outside. Not what Krugman favors, which is even stronger and more radical than Sanders's proposals rather than the weaker and less significant Clinton proposals. Krugman regards single payer health insurance as economically far superior, just like Sanders. Nonsense. Everything he proposes is pragmatic, and needs doing. We don't need people who help the Republicans get worse things done at the expense of the better things they prevent. And that's Clinton's track record. Krugman does not compare the economic policies of Sanders and Clinton, anywhere that I have read. Why do you suppose that is?
Not surprisingly, you are being dishonest again. You have attributed my writing to Krugman and you are denying material which clearly exists and for which you have admitted. You deny, admit and then deny. It's very clear, Krugman has described Sanders's economic policies as "dangerous" and described Hillary's polices as "good" and Krugman went on to say policy is Hillary's strength. You are not being intellectually honest as is you custom.
Constituency Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Via The Hill: If Clinton wins the presidency, she'll owe a part of the victory to black voters, who have largely been the difference in her primary fight against Bernie Sanders. Clinton built her delegate lead by sweeping the South, largely because of the black vote. NBC exit polls show that Clinton trounced Sanders 81 to 18 percent among African-Americans in Florida, where she won a huge victory. In Cleaver's home state of Missouri, she also fared much better than the Vermont senator among black voters, winning 67 percent. Given that context and Clinton's stated desire to take action on income inequality and jobs, it's easy to imagine the Clyburn legislation―which has drawn support from Republicans―being moved in the first 100 days of a Clinton administration. Clyburn's bill would direct at least 10 percent of federal spending on discretionary programs to communities where at least 20 percent of the population has lived below the poverty line for at least the last 30 years. While many of those districts have poor white populations as well, the bill could help black Americans struggling in the economic recovery. Black leaders who have backed Clinton will be looking for more, however. The thing is that there are some communities in America who are pretty much always expected to wait; your turn is coming, we tell them, and then offer table scraps. Amie Parnes'↱ report considers the increased urgency: Obama was under pressure after his election to do something for the black community, and there are critics who argue he did not do enough. “Historians are going to have a field day trying to juxtapose how in the era of the first black president, the bottom fell out for black America,” talk show host and frequent Obama critic Tavis Smiley said late last year on Fox News. “Black people were still in many ways politically marginalized, socially manipulated and economically exploited.” Obama frequently talked in his first term about how he wanted to be the president for all Americans―not just black Americans. In some ways, that situation arguably put him in a more difficult position upon entering the White House than Clinton would find herself in. Clinton would at least not face critics guessing that a position to help black America was being taken because of her race. This is also a reflection of a powerful riddle facing a Hillary Clinton administration. The United States of America might well have elected its first black president, but the black community has also paid something of a dear price. Supremacist elements in our society began panicking at the implications, and the result has been America once again taking it out on black people. President Obama can't simply be as good as any president, he needs to be better. It is our society's perpetual message to dark skin and women alike: You must be better than everyone else before you will be regarded as equals. From trying to call off the one-drop rule in order to deny that we had elected the first black president to taking sympathy to grieving families off the table, the conservative reaction to Obama's presidency has been insane. Right now our society regards an unarmed black man walking away as a greater threat to life and limb than a white man with a gun threatening to shoot. Prosecutors convene grand juries in order to tell them to not indict white police officers. Agents provocateur are shooting at black people in order to discredit black people. We already know that Republicans generally loathe women; what do we think is about to happen? But how many lines can the Republicans hold? White, male, and Christian supremacism is a pretty tall order. And they even seem to be losing their latest tizzy about the transgendered. The great irony here is that if Republicans try to take it out on women―the leading possibility―Hillary Clinton will have that much more room to answer the black community and their contribution to her presidency. Still, though, conservatives had best think thrice before pitching a tantrum all over women; while blacks make up a bit over twelve percent of the population, women are a majority. That is, Republicans have long been in over their heads, but they're going to need to do something to recover from the Trump blow while pitching something attractive to really pissed off hardliners. Going after women―which is already sport in the GOP, anyway―could be exactly the worst thing they do for themselves, because Hillary Clinton can easily fend off their inkwell-dipping, blithering begging for her attention. And the more they do that, the more room she will have to answer the black community. It should be noted she could also do more than hold the line for women; if Republicans overcommit with their intrusive, disruptive attempts to meddle with women's health, Hillary Clinton might be able to put a couple of those issues to rest. Or, at the very least, thrash the Republicans senseless, which will make it easier to get other work done, too. This would be one of the more interesting aspects of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She must deliver. She is certainly capable of delivering. The questions are what and how. Give her a Congress, and she might well play for miracles. ____________________ Notes: Parnes, Amie. "Black leaders expect Clinton to deliver". The Hill. 12 April 2016. TheHill.com. 13 April 2016. http://bit.ly/1VTCh1z
No, he hasn't. Nowhere. The quote is "actually, pretty good". He was a bit surprised. He never compares them. Why do you suppose that is? The miracle will be if she doesn't acquiesce in a significant rollback of Social Security, after being threatened with a government shutdown and the disintegration of Obamacare. I will never understand why people expect sudden transformations of character and ideology in a newly elected President.
Isn't Hillary's nomination connected to the corruption in the Democratic party. She gets all the super delegates even where she loses the popular vote. This is what Bernie called the rigged system. Calling conservative policies extremist is misleading. For example, the majority of Americans never wanted ObamaCare. ObamaCare was the extremist since it went against the will of the majority. How can the majority view be called extreme and those who try to force a minority opinion not be called the extremists. Democrats are good at deception. They base appears compliant or clueless. Has anyone ever wondered why Hillary needed a personal server for government business, when she could have been supplied a secure government server? Why would anyone pay for a server and an IT professional, if your job offers the same thing for free? Maybe Hillary was sensitive to the national debt and did not want to add to it. Or maybe she had things she needed to hide from the public record, which is hard with a government server. For example, Clinton Foundation fund raising may have been done during work, as Hillary globe trotted around the world on the government dime. Her sales pitch may have involved influence peddling in exchange for donations, if she become president.
If trump becomes president, the world will end a lot quicker than we predict it will. Maybe we won't be swallowed up by the sun, but instead, nuclear hellfire wrought upon us by this idiot. The only actual candidates this time around are Kasich, Hillary, and Bernie, I'm leaning more towards Bernie/Hillary, but Kasich is alright aswell.
And where is the Democratic Party corruption exactly? Republicans also have super delegates. You are doing what Republicans have always done when they get their collective wee wees stuck in the meat grinder. They blame Democrats. Unlike Republicans, their election process isn't rigged. Unlike Republicans, the Democratic nominee will receive the most votes. Your man Trump isn't accusing Democrats of rigging the vote. He has and continues to accuse Republicans of rigging the Republican convention vote. In Trump's case he will likely win more votes than any other Republican candidate, yet he may well lose the nomination because of vote rigging or other similar shenanigans reminiscent of the 2000 Baby Bush fiasco in Florida. Unlike Trump, Sanders hasn't said the Democratic system was rigged. Sanders is one of them thar super delegates Republicans like to talk about except when it comes to their super delegates. No it isn't. It's the God Damn truth. There is absolutely nothing misleading about it. So you don't think causing a US debt default as Republicans have attempted on multiple occasions isn't extreme? You don't think holding the full faith and credit hostage to your irrational party demands isn't extremist? You don't think rounding up 11.5 million illegal aliens and deporting them isn't extreme? You don't think disfranchising millions of Americans isn't extremism? You don't think refusing to allow Obama's Supreme Court nominee a hearing and a vote isn't extreme? And I could go on and on, unfortunately, the Republican Party has become an extremist party, and that is why the party is crumbling under its own weight. So using your reasoning, Hitler and Nazism wasn't extreme. Because Nazi's held the majority. Just because a majority feels or believe something that doesn't make the minority extreme. Lacking a majority doesn't make anything extreme. It helps to understand word meanings. Extreme: "in the farthest possible position" - Merriam Webster's Dictionary Lacking a majority doesn't make one extreme. If that were the case, using your definition, it would by definition make the Republican Party an extremist party because the Republican Party is a minority party. Republican senators have refused to hold confirmation hearings as they are constitutionally required to do for Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Some 2/3rd s of Americans think Republicans should hold hearings and vote on Obama's Supreme Court nominee. So using your example, you would have to say Republicans are a party of extremists, because they are a minority party who hold a vasts number of minority beliefs (e.g. hearings for Obama's appointees). And one more thing, most Americans wanted healthcare reform, and unfortunately because of tremendous amount of Republican misinformation about Obamacare most people didn't understand Obamacare. Once they understood it, they liked it. Obamacare isn't perfect, but it is certainly light years better than it was before Obamacare. Giving millions of Americans access to healthcare isn't extreme. Every other industrialized country in the world does the same or more than Obamacare does. That isn't extreme in any way. It isn't even radical. It's not unusual for celebrities or politicians to have personal servers. And as you were previously told, previous Secretaries of State used personal servers (e.g. Colin Powell) and it wasn't a big deal, of course Powell is a Republican who worked for a Republican POTUS. As previously pointed out to you Hillary voluntarily turned over all of her emails and her server for inspection. Now, that's a funny way to "hide something from the public record". And as also pointed out, when she sent or received emails from government employees, they immediately upon receipt became part of the public record and logged and copied on government servers...oops. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! LOL...you keep trying, I'll give you credit for that. But here is the thing, the US Secretary of State is not and never has been an hourly wage position. The US Secretary of State doesn't have fixed work hours. The US Secretary of State isn't the the Secretary of State only between the hours of 9-5 only. And here is the thing, you have absolutely no evidence that Hillary did anything untoward while she served as Secretary of State. But hey, you and your fellow Republicans have never let little things like the lack of evidence get in the way of your making outlandish allegations. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you make outlandish allegations, you should be able to support those allegations. But because Republicans are so extreme, they don't worry about little things like evidence and reason. You and your fellow Republicans don't speculate about the motivations of previous Secretaries of State were when they used their private servers for government business. Maybe they were using their personal servers to cover up their work for The Clinton Foundation? But they were Republicans, so you don't care about their motivations. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You are not being honest again. We had this very long discussion which definitively debunked your assertion. Krugman clearly and definitively described Sanders's positions as disturbing and he went on to explain why. http://www.sciforums.com/threads/hillary-2016.155821/#post-3371130 Just because you don't like it, it doesn't make it so. He clearly describes Hillary's positions as "good". And who is exactly that is expecting a sudden transformation of character and ideology? You are using a straw man. You need to ask yourself why you find it necessary to be so intellectually dishonest.
His political positions. Not his economic policies. Krugman nowhere describes Sanders's economic policies as dangerous or disturbing. He nowhere compares them to Clinton's. Not quite: "actually, pretty good" - the tone of surprise written right in, as well as the faintness of the praise. And he does not compare them with Sanders's, which we know from his other writing he thinks are generally better (he has elsewhere compared single payer, especially an expansion of Medicare type setup, with Romney's setup borrowed for Obamacare, for example). Anyone who expects firmness of resolve and competence in advocacy of genuinely liberal causes from Hillary Clinton.
You are being silly and dishonest. We have had this discussion before. Per my previous references, Krugman clearly labeled Sanders's economic polices as "dangerous" and he explained why. Financial and healthcare reforms are economic policies. It you think otherwise, you need to pull out a dictionary. Krugman clearly described Hillary's policies as "good" if you want include the word "pretty" in front of the word "good" so be it. It strenthens my case. Krugman went on to note that policy formation was Hillary's strength. You don't have to infer some secret meaning in Kurgman's words. Krugman was quite clear and his meaning was very clear and understandable. Krugman is a very good writer in addition to being a well respected Nobel Prize winning economist.
And yet you cannot quote him doing so. Nothing like that appeared in what you quoted, or in the original article you linked. Krugman discussed Sanders's political and rhetorical positions, mostly. Yes they are. And Krugman is an economist. That's why the missing comparison is striking.
