Krugman nails it, re: Bernie fans
Intellectually, a segment of the far left is growing to resemble the Glenn Beck right, where facts and expertise are denigrated, and anyone who uses them is accused of being part of a conspiracy. Paul Krugman is the latest progressive to be labeled a Hillary lackey for daring to honestly analyze Bernie's proposals, as opposed to blindly worshipping him:
And the response of some — only some — Sanders supporters is disappointing, although I guess predictable given that somewhat similar things happened during the 2008 primary. There will, I guess, always be some people who, having made an emotional commitment to a candidate, can’t accept the proposition that someone might share their values but honestly disagree with the candidate’s approach.
Right now I’m getting the kind of correspondence I usually get from Rush Limbaugh listeners, although this time it’s from the left — I’m a crook, I’m a Hillary crony, etc., etc.. OK, been there before — back in 2008 I was even the subject of tales about my son working for the Clintons, which was surprising because I don’t have a son.
But I’m used to this stuff. It’s a bit more shocking to see Mike Konczal — one of our most powerful advocates of financial reform, heroic critic of austerity, and a huge resource for progressives — attacked as one of Hillary’s minions and an ally of the financial industry.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
= new reply since forum marked as read
it gets annoying after a while.
If they were just titled "Bernie Supporters are So Mean" maybe pinned to the top of the forum? Those that want to commiserate about what awful people we are- could easily find the thread, and those who find broken records annoying could just skip it. 
Enough Said! 
I was under the impression HRC supporters were above that sort of thing.
Thanks, I learned something today.
bye now.
definite that she wasn't running, I switched over to Sanders. His political views
and those of Warren were so much alike and very similar to my own.
As for "making their presence felt," that's the purpose of discussion groups, isn't it? 
I'll never understand people who think screaming insults at someone changes minds.
"I attacked BOTH his character AND his POV, thank you very much." Sometimes the internets give you comedic treasures like your reply. Thank you, last1.
Please!
But if an ignorance of how the English language works gives you your jollies, please continue laughing. I'm all for a good chuckle.
Glad you can laugh along with me. Because it gets better with every reply.
And as for the rest, if all you've got is a claim that you're laughing because of what I posted, then you've obviously got nothing at all.
And, no, I wasn't there. 
Thanks for the chuckle! I couldn't resist.
And, sometimes, he's full of shit.
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-logical-bipartisan-insanity-of-endless-war/
War Pays for Some: “A Hunt for Cash”
That’s something for the leading liberal pundit, partisan Democrat, and converted Obama fan Paul Krugman to reflect on. “War,” Krugman informed New York Times readers last August, “doesn’t pay” anymore, if it ever did for “modern, wealthy nations.” This is particularly true, Krugman feels, in “an interconnected world” where “war would necessarily inflict severe economic harm on the victor.”
There’s truth in his argument if by “war” we mean only major military conflicts between large and industrialized states. Such conflagrations are more than unlikely in our current “ultra-imperialist” (Karl Kautsky’s term) era marked by massive cross-national capital investment and global market inter-penetration.
More on Karl Kautsky:
To Hilferding imperialism is a policy of capitalism and not a stage of capitalism itself. Kautsky also held this view, but he differed with Hilferding in regarding imperialism as a policy of industrial (albeit a "highly developed"
capitalism rather than of financial capitalism. From the policy viewpoint, regardless of how it expresses itself, capitalism conceivably possesses the power to turn competitive imperialism into a cooperative economic internationalism. Kautsky, indeed, came to the conclusion during the war that imperialism is not inevitable or unalterable under capitalism but may yet attain a still higher synthesis, an "ultra-" or "super-imperialism," under which a peaceful policy may be adopted as in the days of Manchesterism, as the best means of eliminating the wastes of competitive warfare and of insuring uninterrupted profits.36 Hilferding likewise thought such an eventuality possible economically but not politically, because of antagonistic interests between the powers.37
Turning to the radical communist representatives of Marxian thought, we find very little originality, but a vast amount of polemical criticism of the theories of imperialism held by Kautsky, Hilferding, and all center and right-wing socialists. The outstanding example of this sort of criticism is found in Lenin's Imperialism.38 Embittered and disillusioned, particularly by the failure of Kautsky, so long regarded as Marx's direct successor, to go the whole way with violent revolution, Lenin makes him the scape-goat for all revisionist "renegades" from true Marxism.
Lenin and the communists generally are hostile to the notion that capitalism is capable of adopting a peaceful policy, even temporarily. The fact that capitalism once went through a peaceful stage is regarded as a mere episode in its development.39 Lenin identifies imperialism with the monopoly stage of capitalism and scornfully rejects the view that it is a mere external policy. He looks upon imperialism as "a tendency to violence and reaction in general,"40 and he brands any suggestion that it is otherwise as the talk of bourgeois reformers and socialist opportunists which glosses over the "deepest internal contradictions of imperialism."4I Granting, says Lenin, that capitalist nations should combine into such an "ultra-imperialism" or world-alliance as that visualized by Kautsky and others, it could be no more than temporary, for peaceful alliances prepare the ground for wars.42
The biggest flaw in Krugman’s argument is his failure to make the (one would think) elementary distinction between (a) the wealthy Few and (b) the rest of us and society as whole when it comes to who loses and who gains from contemporary (endless) war, As the venerable U.S. foreign policy critic Edward S. Herman asks and observes:
“Doesn’t war pay for Lockheed-Martin, GE, Raytheon, Honeywell, Halliburton, Chevron, Academi (formerly Blackwater) and the vast further array of contractors and their financial, political, and military allies? An important feature of ‘projecting power’ (i.e., imperialism) has always been the skewed distribution of costs and benefits…The costs have always been borne by the general citizenry (including the dead and injured military personnel and their families), while the benefits accrue to privileged sectors whose members not only profit from arms supply and other services, but can plunder the victim countries during and after the invasion-occupation.”
are perfect,To Quote Defoe from Boondocks saints "men, as we both know are fallible" I think I got that right, spell check sucks sometimes. It's like when my Righty friends go off on Obama I tell them "look you want to criticize Obama, thats fine, just do it with fact and the truth not BS talking points. Unfortunately with this crowd there is a lot of snark or "I'm the reasonable one and you are being emotional." or there is the bald face statement and when someone gets pissed, then you being hurtful, never mind the flat out BS that was just said. 
I got a hide for that the other day. Be safe out there.
I'm ethically and ideologically closer to Bernie Sanders than to any other serious candidate in the race and I plan to support him in the primary. But my regret if he loses would be softened by knowing the anguish it would bring to Sander's legions of mud-slinging fans.
I like Hillary Clinton (I love hearing her boisterous laugh in particular). I disagree with her expansionist foreign policy, her idea of the proper relationship between business and government, and other things. I would be okay with her winning the general election -- she might keep the federal courts somewhat balanced toward the liberal view. But my regret if she loses would be softened by knowing the anguish it would bring to her legions of mud-slinging fans.
1st:
2nd:
And how long, again, did it take Hillary (who also regards Mubarek as a "friend of our family"
, to repudiate that vote? Or sort of repudiate that vote? And this is looking good for American foreign policy?
As for single-payer -- what confidence it must take, to prefer a failed and expensive system to one proven by the rest of the world to work, for half or a third of what ours costs us.
With this kind of defeatist Democratic leadership, who's going to come out to vote?
If nothing else, this election period demonstrates once again that while Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs.
3rd:
I searched the top comments for "crook", "shill", "lackey", or "crony", but didn't find any hits. But of course, why deal with substantive criticism from the majority when you can cherry pick comments from a few random individuals in order to paint a large group in a bad light?
might not understand what cherry picking is ("Here are the three most populous U.S. states" "How come you're cherry picking and not listing Wyoming?!" .
I picked the three most up voted because that gives us a sense about what the majority of people think, rather than whether or not someone can find a few impolite comments among the the 611 comments that were made.
For instance, the first comment you posted:
Mr. krugman obviously aspires to a position in a Clinton administration.
has 3 recs. The three comments I picked have 282, 260, and 244 recs, respectively. It would be foolish to act like they're equally representative of Sanders' supporters. I think most people realize that any large group is going to have some people in it who make impolite comments. As I stated in my first post, the point isn't whether or not such comments are made, but how well they represent the majority. Yet again:
And though at this point it seems clear your intent on misrepresenting me, I should once again repeat:
TWEET:
"it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect" http://nyti.ms/1U9mv03 #p2 #ImwithHer
Paul Krugman - New York Times Blog
Weakened at Bernie’s
January 19, 2016 9:39 am January 19, 2016 9:39 am
.............But here’s the thing: we now have a clear view of Sanders’ positions on two crucial issues, financial reform and health care. And in both cases his positioning is disturbing — not just because it’s politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing, but also because he takes his own version of cheap shots. Not at people — he really is a fundamentally decent guy — but by going for easy slogans and punting when the going gets tough.
On finance: Sanders has made restoring Glass-Steagal and breaking up the big banks the be-all and end-all of his program. That sounds good, but it’s nowhere near solving the real problems. The core of what went wrong in 2008 was the rise of shadow banking; too big to fail was at best marginal, and as Mike Konczal notes, pushing the big banks out of shadow banking, on its own, could make the problem worse by causing the risky stuff to “migrate elsewhere, often to places where there is less regulatory infrastructure.”
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders “plan” isn’t just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich — and single-payer really does save money, whereas there’s no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, it’s not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect................
He has his opinion(s). I have mine. I'm wrong. He's right-OR-He's wrong. I'm correct. End of discussion
I'm not changing my mind. I am enjoying the roll out of those who have staked their claim one way or the other.
