Posted on 12/03/2020 7:42:49 AM PST by JV3MRC
New York Times blowhard economist Paul Krugman continues to brazenly contradict himself with impunity. The Washington Examiner’s chief political correspondent Byron York has finally had enough.
In his Dec. 1 Daily Memo, York ripped apart Krugman’s latest commentary propagandizing that former Vice President Joe Biden will be “the first modern U.S. president trying to govern in the face of an opposition that refuses to accept his legitimacy.” As York summarized: “Krugman seemed to anticipate that some would respond that some Democrats refused to accept Donald Trump's legitimacy. But that never happened, Krugman claimed. ‘And no, Democrats never said Donald Trump was illegitimate,’ he wrote, ‘just that he was incompetent and dangerous.’"
York then went for the jugular: “Does anyone at The New York Times read Krugman's column before it's published?” His memo was headlined to take a shot at Krugman: “A New York Times Embarrassment.” Ouch.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Low bar.
The thing is most democrats only believe the last thing they heard ... they forgot about what happened four years ago Krugman knows how stupid his audience is.
The leftist elite, like Krugman, believe that we “deplorables”, you know, the ones that Peter Strozk can smell when he enters a Walmart, have stupid tattooed on our foreheads.
Krugman does not have the capacity to be embarrassed about anything.
Remember the left’s shrill cries that the candidate for President, MUST BE able to answer the 3:00 AM RED PHONE call?
You know where I am going with this.
“they forgot about what happened four years ago Krugman knows how stupid his audience is.”
His target audience may be very young. Four years ago, they had not yet achieved consciousness, and since then they’ve been kept ignorant of history.
Would it be too much to ask the children who write these stories to take a moment before they hit “publish” and find an adult?
“Knockout punch”??
Has Paul Krugman been fired from the New York Times? Has the NYT had to issue a correction or even take down a tweet? Have a single one of his likeminded colleagues taken to a keyboard to distance themselves from him or even comment on this supposedly “epic takedown”?
The whole point of this article is to emphasize that words mean things, but it’s dressed up in a bunch of language that means nothing and worse than that, acts like a simple refutation of an argument is an earth shattering event. I don’t know how these people will actually be able to find words to cover an actual big breaking news story should they ever last long enough in the business to encounter one.
You cannot respond to these people with facts and reason. Krugman knows he is lying. The Times knows he he is lying. That’s the whole idea, the big lis. They will shamelessly print them, the bigger the better and suppress any response. Sheer propaganda - that’s what it’s come to. We need to respond AND take the offense on alternative channels. Parler, Rumble, Bitchute. The MSM is the enemy of the people and the tool of tyrants.
Jeez, who spit in your cheerios? The story itself destroys Krugman’s legitimacy. It is a “knockout punch” because there is no way Krugman could rebut the criticism. In essence, his entire argument can no longer be defended, and is dead in the water. He just comes across now as a blatant liar. It wasn’t just a refutation. It was a complete dismantling because York had used Krugman’s own words against him, as well as the receipts of other Democrats saying Trump’s presidency was illegitimate.
Your virtue-signaling on word usage just comes across as petty whining.
+1
You beat me to it.
Even forgetting the 2016 election, isn't the New York Times still recounting the Florida ballots from the 2000 election? The punch cards have been worn tissue thin and all the chads have fallen out back in 2011, but the recount still goes on to prove that George W. Bush was "selected, not elected".
Has Krugman ever been right about anything? Just one example, didn’t he tell his readers to get out of the stock market when Trump won in 2016 because the markets would fall? That advice did not age well.
Well of course they said exactly the same thing, in the same words, about W when he was elected. When you don’t have any integrity and aren’t especially bright, you don’t even care about consistency or honesty
No, no it doesn't, and the insistence otherwise proves my original point. This isn't high school debate club. Krugman still has a job, still has all of his Twitter followers, still has the same influence as he did before. I'd bet he doesn't even know this article exists. The only people who read these articles already had zero respect for Krugman, and he couldn't care less about what some nebbish on the internet thinks about him.
I'm not pointing this out to act like I'm so much better, rather I think this whole community is better than the constant drumbeat of "bombshells" "epic shutdowns" and other hyperbolic language. This was the level of discourse FR used to make fun of when DU, mother Jones, and Wonkette did it during the Bush administration, and it's no more effective now that the rightwing blogs have adopted the language.
DESTROYS.. thats so silly, clickbait..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.