Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, January 01, 2018

OTP 1 January 2018 - Athlete boycotts of White House didn’t start with Donald Trump — but he sure helped

Amateur teams began going to the White House as far back as the mid-1860s, while the first championship winning pro baseball team attended in 1925. That was the Washington Senators, winners of the previous year’s World Series. They were hosted by then-president Calvin Coolidge.

Teams that later followed include the Super Bowl-winning Pittsburgh Steelers. The squad was on hand for the same ceremony in 1980 with then-president Jimmy Carter as baseball’s Pittsburgh Pirates. In June 1991, the Penguins were the first NHL team to visit after capturing a title, meeting George H.W. Bush.

Bird’s decision to skip the visit in 1984 — usually consisting of handshakes and photo ops — is said to be the first snub of significance, even though he didn’t give political reasons.

 

(As always, views expressed in the article lede and comments are the views of the individual commenters and the submitter of the article and do not represent the views of Baseball Think Factory or its owner.)

Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 01, 2018 at 03:22 PM | 1771 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: champions, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›
   1. Joe Bivens Recognizes the Kenyan Precedent Posted: January 01, 2018 at 07:03 PM (#5599356)
Foist!!

And ah yes, those patriotic Penguins.

Our president is a moron.
   2. BDC Posted: January 01, 2018 at 07:35 PM (#5599363)
Never mind - just can’t insert links from my mobile device anymore. Happy New Year!!
   3. Hysterical & Useless Posted: January 01, 2018 at 08:19 PM (#5599370)
Hope everyone's year is off to a terrific start. We've been having fun so far, elder son & his spouse visiting, played a couple of months of Pandemic Legacy (Season 2). Have to go to the gym tomorrow morning, which promises to be fun, since it'll be about 16 degrees and a bit breezy. Great encouragement to walk fast!

   4. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 01, 2018 at 08:30 PM (#5599373)
The 7 most important polling trends of 2017

Well worth reading. My "favorites":

1. Trump's job approval hits record-breaking lows

2. GOP share of the electorate shrinks to new low

4. Congressional ballot trend signals Democratic landslide in 2018 midterms

7. US global reputation takes a hit under Trump


But the whole thing is worth reading. There is even a little for Clapper and the Trumpkins to like.
   5. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 01, 2018 at 08:45 PM (#5599376)
David Frum on Twitter:
So much was weird in 2017, but perhaps the weirdest was that people who nearly triggered a pizzeria gun massacre to stop imaginary child molesters rallied to support an actual child molester’s campaign for US Senate
   6. greenback is on a break Posted: January 01, 2018 at 11:09 PM (#5599410)
In a tweet that went viral, NBA star LeBron James called Trump a “bum” over the incident and said visiting Pennsylvania Ave. was “a great honour” until Trump was elected.

So I guess the the Star's style guide requires they Anglicize (?) tweets from Americans.

This look back at ebola seems an appropriate topic for the new year, although I can't remember any relevant discussion here:
In the U.S., the news was even better. Total deaths came to one. Given the effectiveness of sanitation and quarantine at preventing its spread, this was highly predictable. But medical science didn't inoculate us against national hysteria. And as usual, anti-immigration activists seized on this tragedy as an excuse for the policies they favor in sickness and in health. My frequent debate opponent Mark Krikorian even tweeted under the hashtag #LibertariansForEbola.

Rather than fruitlessly argue with a maelstrom of passion, I publicly proposed the following bet in October, 2014:

$100 says that less than 300 people will die of Ebola within the fifty United States by January 1, 2018.


Four noble souls took the other side. Since today is January 1, 2018, I am pleased to announce that I have won the bet. (Since all prepaid, we're already settled up).
   7. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 07:58 AM (#5599428)
This look back at ebola seems an appropriate topic for the new year, although I can't remember any relevant discussion here:


The usual suspect s were all about ignoring the science and scaremongering on the subject (including, of course, banning travel to and from certain countries). Stretchy was especially hysterical on the subject if I remember correctly.
   8. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 08:04 AM (#5599429)
Snarky headline aside this is a fair round up of the options:

Trump Can’t Decide Which Policy He Should Fail to Pass in 2018

Also, least surprising headline ever:

As US budget fight looms, Republicans are suddenly worried about spending

Anyone that spends more than a split second doing anything but laughing at their dishonesty on the subject needs their head examined. Concerned indeed.
   9. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 08:06 AM (#5599430)
There was some hoping against hope for a massive outbreak that could be pinned on Hussein X and his African sympathies. “President Obola” was floated. Naturally those whose sympathies align with the Party of Creationism found themselves on the short end of the science again.
   10. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 08:30 AM (#5599433)
There was some hoping against hope for a massive outbreak that could be pinned on Hussein X and his African sympathies. “President Obola” was floated. Naturally those whose sympathies align with the Party of Creationism found themselves on the short end of the science again.

That won't stop them the next 100 times, at least if Muslims or Mexicans enter the picture. They know that it's not facts that matter, it's who gets to draw up those legislative districts.
   11. jmp Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:19 AM (#5599442)
Business insider has a piece speculating that the tax law may encourage apple to acquire companies with the $252 billion they have overseas and that Netflix would be a prime target
   12. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:26 AM (#5599445)


The National Review can admit when it was wrong. So when's the last time that liberals admitted that one of their predictions of dire consequences from a particular opposition policy was entirely mistaken?
   13. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:28 AM (#5599448)
For those who were previously interested, tonight is the TCM showing of W.C. Fields in "Million Dollar Legs." (Followed by three more Fields movies that have aired much more recently and frequently.)
   14. Greg K Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:32 AM (#5599450)
So I guess the the Star's style guide requires they Anglicize (?) tweets from Americans.

I think publications do have a responsibility to ensure their readers can comprehend what is printed.
   15. Lassus Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:34 AM (#5599451)
Greg K - still behind, apologies. Hopefully today. Same address, or elsewhere?
   16. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:35 AM (#5599452)
The National Review can admit when it was wrong.


I'm surprised this wasn't an article explaining how deficits spending isn't really a problem now.
   17. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:47 AM (#5599460)
So when's the last time that liberals admitted that one of their predictions of dire consequences from a particular opposition policy was entirely mistaken?


You sound like Paul Krugman. That's his favorite thing to say about conservatives.

I like when people admit that they are wrong, too, but nobody wants to concede ground in whatever the next debate is. It is a bit exhausting.
   18. Greg K Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:51 AM (#5599463)
Greg K - still behind, apologies. Hopefully today. Same address, or elsewhere?

No worries. Same address works great. If I happen to be gone it will get forwarded to me pretty quickly. Such is the life of a hobo!
   19. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:54 AM (#5599464)
I like when people admit that they are wrong, too, but nobody wants to concede ground in whatever the next debate is. It is a bit exhausting.


It is nice that NRO admitted the obvious re: Stop & Frisk. Fewer people supporting immoral, unconstitutional and practically useless policies steeped in racist bullshit is good. Yay NRO! Good job.

Now how about revisiting that 40 year article of faith re: "supply side economics?"
   20. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 09:57 AM (#5599468)
You sound like Paul Krugman. That's his favorite thing to say about conservatives.
I thought his favorite thing to say about conservatives is that they're all dishonest evil liars.

It would be massive pots and kettles for Krugman to make the other charge, given how he never ever admits his own predictions were wrong.
   21. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:02 AM (#5599472)
My favorite vignette from the Ebola outbreak was the freakout over the Louisville teacher who spent her summers doing missionary work in Africa. She was actually further away from the outbreak while in Kenya than when she returned home. It was like deciding that we should ban travel from Anchorage to Tokyo because of an outbreak in Boston. Why stop at denying medical science when you can deny basic geography?
   22. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:03 AM (#5599473)
So when's the last time that liberals admitted that one of their predictions of dire consequences from a particular opposition policy was entirely mistaken?


What a very specific request. I do like the conflation of The National Review with all conservatives, but I suspect many conservatives would not agree with that.

Liberals, on the whole, admit they are wrong about as often as conservatives do. Specific groups, liberal or conservative - such as The National Review - admit they were wrong significantly more often.

And of course if a group is wrong less often they should be expected to have to admit it less often. Hannity is wrong much more than Krugman, and I think one should figure that into the equation.
   23. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:07 AM (#5599476)
My favorite vignette from the Ebola outbreak was the freakout over the Louisville teacher who spent her summers doing missionary work in Africa.


I liked the "Let's ignore what every reputable health organization that deals with Ebola is saying, because this one guy who stayed at Holiday Inn Express has some doubts". In other words it was just like the Climate Change debate and ... well pretty much every debate when science comes into play.

Liberals talk about the consensus view and want to adopt that; meanwhile conservatives scour the internet for whoever says something they like, and then that guy is the expert that must be listened to.
   24. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:09 AM (#5599478)
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!

8:13 AM - Jan 2, 2018


Well, best year tied with 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011.... given 2017 was the 7th straight year without a crash by a US registered airline.

Of course, it was slightly less safe if you got bumped from a flight.
   25. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:17 AM (#5599482)
Krugman to make the other charge, given how he never ever admits his own predictions were wrong.

He does this all the time, even if you don't count his election night tantrum/freakout that he walked back the next day. He's admitted that he was too worried about deficits in Bush's first term. He was expecting actual deflation in 2009. He thought the Greek Crisis would break up the Euro -- or at the very least that Greece would leave. It doesn't take too much googling to find these.

But of course, people who disagree with him want to claim he never admits that he's wrong and then pile on when he does admit mistakes -- each lowers his credibility. It's part of the whole rhetorical debate game.
   26. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:20 AM (#5599484)
given 2017 was the 7th straight year without a crash by a US registered airline.


What is new this year is that *worldwide* there were no deaths on *jet* airplanes.

Unfortunately, that stat came out the day after a prop-plane disaster in Costa Rica.
   27. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:31 AM (#5599490)
Krugman to make the other charge, given how he never ever admits his own predictions were wrong.


He does this all the time, even if you don't count his election night tantrum/freakout that he walked back the next day. He's admitted that he was too worried about deficits in Bush's first term. He was expecting actual deflation in 2009. He thought the Greek Crisis would break up the Euro -- or at the very least that Greece would leave. It doesn't take too much googling to find these.

But of course, people who disagree with him want to claim he never admits that he's wrong and then pile on when he does admit mistakes -- each lowers his credibility. It's part of the whole rhetorical debate game.


The most blatant example of this around here is the way that Ray and David will try to discredit PolitiFact and similar fact checkers when they note the lopsided numbers of lies committed by Trump compared to his liberal opponents, or the way David and JE love to complain about the liberal bias of the Times and the Post. It's called working the refs, and it's a tactic that's been used by conservatives going back 70 years or more.

   28. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:38 AM (#5599494)
Unfortunately, that stat came out the day after a prop-plane disaster in Costa Rica.


Hispanic deaths don't count.
   29. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:46 AM (#5599500)
Hispanic deaths don't count.

That was the backtalk on twitter too. (although there were many Americans on board)

It is not part of the statistic because that was a propeller plane and not a jet plane.
   30. bunyon Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5599501)
What is new this year is that *worldwide* there were no deaths on *jet* airplanes.

I thought a lot about this. I made approximately 40 takeoffs (and landings, yay!) in South America in 2017 and the entire experience was...almost identical to what I experience in North America. Everything was well regulated, ran on time, customer service was usually meh, sometimes appalling and sometimes great. Humans really do seem to have gotten the hang of jet travel. I'm guessing 50 years ago I would have had decent odds of serious problems making that many flights in South America.
   31. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:48 AM (#5599502)

Krugman loves, when caught in a false prediction, to turn the criticism around by snidely citing the (apocryphal?) quote from Keynes, saying, "When I receive new information, I change my views. What do you do, sir?” So he not only doesn't just forthrightly admit error, but instead turns it around into an attack on the person calling him on an error. Which he makes often.
   32. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 10:58 AM (#5599508)
It is not part of the statistic because that was a propeller plane and not a jet plane.


Yes. I'm aware of this David. It's a stupid statistic because of this, and only stupid people would pay attention to it, or pretend that the POTUS has any real impact on air traffic accidents at all. Which is why, of course, the Idiot In Chief was all over it.
   33. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5599511)
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump
Since taking office I have been very strict on Commercial Aviation. Good news - it was just reported that there were Zero deaths in 2017, the best and safest year on record!

8:13 AM - Jan 2, 2018


The problem with this tweet -- aside from the fact that he had nothing to do with the zero commercial crashes -- is that the minute there's a plane crash with 238 souls on board the left will gleefully throw this tweet back in his face.

But I guess he gets what he gets out of it for the time being.
   34. BDC Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:00 AM (#5599512)
Our president is a moron

His latest interview with the New York Times' Michael Schmidt certainly adds evidence for that theory.

You start off with New York, California and Illinois against you. That means you have to run the East Coast, which I did, and everything else. Which I did and then won Wisconsin and Michigan. [Inaudible.] So the Democrats. … [Inaudible.] … They thought there was no way for a Republican, not me, a Republican, to win the Electoral College. Well, they’re [inaudible]. They made the Russian story up as a hoax, as a ruse, as an excuse for losing an election that in theory Democrats should always win with the Electoral College. The Electoral College is so much better suited to the Democrats [inaudible]. But it didn’t work out that way. And I will tell you they cannot believe that this became a story.

SCHMIDT: So they had to do this to come after you, to undercut you?

TRUMP: No, no, they thought it would be a one-day story, an excuse, and it just kept going and going and going. It’s too bad Jeff recused himself. I like Jeff, but it’s too bad he recused himself. I thought. … Many people will tell you that something is [inaudible].


Is it just me, or do the "inaudibles" in that transcript (there are many others) sound a lot like what they used to call "expletive deleted?"
   35. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:01 AM (#5599513)
Wait! So Paul Krugman is human? <gasp!>

No pundit is 100% correct, and if there were it basically means they are being far far too weeny in what they are saying. Risk taking and thus making errors is not only expected it is a sign that someone is doing it right.

Now I can see the snark - boring - but yes some percentage of mistakes is more than OK. Now being wrong nearly 100% of the time (Hi GOP President Trump!) is even worse than being right 100% of the time (which again is either being way too conservative or just plain lying).

I could be wrong of course, all someone needs to do is point me to a pundit who made bold predictions all year and was 100% correct.
   36. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:02 AM (#5599514)
Krugman loves, when caught in a false prediction, to turn the criticism around by snidely citing the (apocryphal?) quote from Keynes, saying, "When I receive new information, I change my views. What do you do, sir?” So he not only doesn't just forthrightly admit error, but instead turns it around into an attack on the person calling him on an error. Which he makes often.


The link you provide to NRO does this multiple times as well.

De Blasio is not the primary reason for this reversal;


it seems likely that the sharp declines that began under Bloomberg would have continued if Bloomberg had remained in office


It’s possible there is some number-fudging going on with the crime statistics, but so far there is only scattered anecdotal evidence of that.


New York City’s mayor is a contemptible human being... But...


What's the thing father used to always say about anything that came before the word "but", Sansa?
   37. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:04 AM (#5599515)
The problem with this tweet -- aside from the fact that he had nothing to do with the zero commercial crashes -- is that the minute there's a plane crash with 238 souls on board the left will gleefully throw this tweet back in his face.


No. The fact it is a lie* is the problem with the tweet. People saying ... "So about that lie, what about this thing that just happened" is not the problem.

If a plane crashes then the problem will be ... wait for it ... that a plane crashed, not that some people use that to point out that the GOP President is again lying.

* If you don't want to call it a lie, then sure, feel free to substitute "disconnected with reality" if you must.
   38. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5599517)
The problem with this tweet -- aside from the fact that he had nothing to do with the zero commercial crashes --


is that it is yet more evidence of an intellectually, emotionally, and mentally unfit person occupying an office he shouldn't be occupying because he is emotionally, intellectually, and mentally ill-suited for it.
   39. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:08 AM (#5599518)
Krugman loves, when caught in a false prediction, to turn the criticism around by snidely citing the (apocryphal?) quote from Keynes, saying, "When I receive new information, I change my views. What do you do, sir?” So he not only doesn't just forthrightly admit error, but instead turns it around into an attack on the person calling him on an error. Which he makes often.

I love the date of that Carpe Diem column on Krugman's mistakes: January 14, 2008. I wonder if Professor Perry issued any predictions of his own for the rest of that year.

And while Krugman's predictions about the housing bubble and the ensuing recession were premature, they were certainly more prescient than the Pollyanna views of the Bush administration.
   40. BDC Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:10 AM (#5599519)
The boldest prediction I made in the past few years was that even if the Republicans won control of the whole government, the universal-insurability provision of the ACA would prove very difficult to repeal. Holding steady so far on that one.

But all in all, I don't go in much for predictions, preferring to retire on my 2003 opinion that that land war in Asia was going to prove difficult to extract ourselves from. I take more of a "let's see how this plays out" attitude these days. The privilege of advancing old age.
   41. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:11 AM (#5599520)
Always amusing - 2017 Golden Dukes Winners Announced!

So I’m choosing the best good old traditional scandal from among the slate of nominees: elected Republican official does weird sex thing! Here’s looking at you, former Congressman Trent Franks.

This has all the makings of a perfect scandal, general interest: a deeply conservative politician who’s morally upstanding, anti-abortion rights, and a member of the “family values” clan in public but engaging in deeply weird, possibly criminal extracurriculars behind closed doors—in this case, asking two female aides about the possibility of paying them $5 million to have sex with him and then carry his child. As if that wasn’t enough, Politico reported Franks went as far as trying to convince one woman he approached that she was actually in love with him, a deception that, personally speaking, would cost far more than $5 million to pull off.

Franks isn’t the only member of Congress to be brought down by the mass of sexual harassment revelations stemming from our halls of power—and he certainly won’t be the last—but this year, he was absolutely the weirdest.
   42. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5599522)
Krugman to make the other charge, given how he never ever admits his own predictions were wrong.

He does this all the time, even if you don't count his election night tantrum/freakout that he walked back the next day.


The problem with the election night tweet -- you're calling it a "tantrum/freakout" to excuse his idiocy -- is that he can walk it back the next day but he can never undo the damage it did to his reputation. Just as when someone who utters something clearly racist or anti-semitic can't simply "walk it back" and continue on their merry way, neither can Krugman do so in the different context here, no matter how much you and the others who keep trying to give him a pass on this -- and who keep objecting when people like Clapper bring it up -- desperately wish it were so. The left is upset about this because they want to keep relying on his analysis but at this point he's basically on the level of Rush Limbaugh.

He tweeted out something incredibly stupid and it permanently harmed his reputation not because people don't understand that he knew better -- but because people DO understand that he knew better. With the Strzok affair I spoke about professionalism being a sort of "fourth wall" that separates people who merely carry around biases from people who let their biases affect their work and objectivity. The former is completely normal; the latter means that you're a hack and unfit for your job. Krugman showed -- although there was never really any doubt among sane people -- that he's a complete hack who can't be trusted to provide objective analysis ever again.

(With respect to the "fourth wall of professionalism," Comey is an interesting case. From all accounts he did his job professionally while in it, but the leaking severely damaged his credibility, in my view, perhaps even retroactively. He let the circus act that is Trump get to him. Which is part of why Trump succeeds -- he drives the people who are forced to deal with him utterly crazy. See for example how Ted Cruz reacted in his press conference after Trump announced that Cruz's father may have had a hand in the JFK assasination. If you can get James Comey and Ted Cruz to break character you can get to pretty much anyone.)
   43. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:12 AM (#5599523)
Our president is a moron

His latest interview with the New York Times' Michael Schmidt certainly adds evidence for that theory.
Regarding that same interview: Presidential Word Salads:
But Michael, I know the details of taxes better than anybody. Better than the greatest C.P.A. I know the details of health care better than most, better than most. And if I didn’t, I couldn’t have talked all these people into doing ultimately only to be rejected.

[longer excerpt snipped]
After reading this, it is advisable to take a moment to wonder at the absurdity of life, to offer a quiet prayer of thanks for the fact that any of us is still alive, and then to pursue—yet again, and surely not for the last time—that recurring question of our era: What in the world is the president talking about?

The first paragraph, in which we see him interrupting his own boasting with the realization that since no health-care bill passed he should probably stop saying he worked to convince Republicans to vote for one, is just comedy gold. The rest is a fascinating jumble.
I will repeat what I have said every time I've listening to Trump trying to say something substantive: Bats aren't bugs!!
   44. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5599526)
He's succeeding by driving you nuts!
   45. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:16 AM (#5599527)
Just as when someone who utters something clearly racist or anti-semitic can't simply "walk it back" and continue on their merry way,
Kind of like how Trump can't simply walk back saying that there were fine people at the neo-Nazi rally by saying the next day that he condemns them.
   46. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:22 AM (#5599531)

The most blatant example of this around here is the way that Ray and David will try to discredit PolitiFact and similar fact checkers when they note the lopsided numbers of lies committed by Trump compared to his liberal opponents, or


It's not really a "discrediting" of them so much as it is explaining to you the limits of what they can practically achieve with this type of "analysis." I don't assume that they're biased; I assume that what they're trying to do can't be done in any meaningful way, certainly not to the ridiculous level of false precision they present it as. Everyone knows that Trump tells many more lies and much taller lies and much more easily fact-checkable lies than any other politician. How much can value Politifact add to that? Not much -- and actually when you present something from them that laughably tries to claim that Obama told only 18 lies in 8 years it hurts your credibility and theirs far more than it helps.
   47. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5599532)
The problem with the election night tweet -- you're calling it a "tantrum/freakout" to excuse his idiocy -- is that he can walk it back the next day but he can never undo the damage it did to his reputation.


Says the guy who spent last year extensively quoting a cartoonist with loony views and numerous examples of much worse "punditry". Funny that.

If you are in the pundit game you are going to say stupid things. It is the ratio, how often you are right, and are you right on the big stuff.
   48. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:27 AM (#5599534)
Wait! So Paul Krugman is human? <gasp!>


Yes. And a hack. But continue to try to distract from that issue by talking about something else.

No pundit is 100% correct, and if there were it basically means they are being far far too weeny in what they are saying. Risk taking and thus making errors is not only expected it is a sign that someone is doing it right.


You're completely eliding the issue here. It's not that he predicted something and stuck to it and then it turned out that he was incorrect. He predicted something and did NOT stick to it; he walked it back the next day. And the something he predicted was so insane that nobody believed he actually believed it. Which is why I said it drove the final nail into his credibility.

Now I can see the snark - boring - but yes some percentage of mistakes is more than OK. Now being wrong nearly 100% of the time (Hi GOP President Trump!) is even worse than being right 100% of the time (which again is either being way too conservative or just plain lying).

I could be wrong of course, all someone needs to do is point me to a pundit who made bold predictions all year and was 100% correct.


The issue is not that he wasn't correct, or that he's not 100% correct generally.

Do you understand what is being discussed?
   49. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:28 AM (#5599535)

If you are in the pundit game you are going to say stupid things. It is the ratio, how often you are right, and are you right on the big stuff.
Actually, if you're in the pundit game it's how entertaining you are, and how much you tell your audience what they want to hear.
   50. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:30 AM (#5599538)
Do you understand what is being discussed?


Sure. You want to cherry pick an instance of someone being wrong in order to discredit them on everything. It is obvious what you are doing. My commentary is exactly pointed at that.

Every pundit says dumb stuff. Given the amount of stuff they say, of course they do. And heck I am not even super fond of Krugman and don't generally follow him, so I am not defending him specifically, just refuting your asinine attack.
   51. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:34 AM (#5599540)
Sure. You want to cherry pick an instance of someone being wrong in order to discredit them on everything. It is obvious what you are doing. My commentary is exactly pointed at that.


Once more: you don't understand the subject matter being discussed. It's not that he was wrong; it's that he didn't give himself a chance to be right, because he knew that his prediction was so insane and driven by irrationality -- keep saying there's no such thing as TDS, folks -- that he walked it back.
   52. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5599541)
Actually, if you're in the pundit game it's how entertaining you are, and how much you tell your audience what they want to hear.


In terms of how much one is compensated, sure. In terms of how seriously one should take their opinions, then no. Krugman knows more about economics than anyone here, obviously. That doesn't mean he is always right on economic matter though, of course, but you should always at least take him seriously. When he opines on non-economic matters, then yeah he starts way lower on the credibility scale.

Dilbert guy should totally be listened to when talking about cartoons and syndication and such things he knows about, not so much on other matters - or at least again the initial credibility bar is set much much lower in areas he is not an expert in, as it should be.

And of course one should be automatically suspicious of anyone telling you exactly what you want to hear. If an ideological ally says something you don't like, or ideological enemy says something you like then at least consider it strongly. The reverse should always be greeted with skepticism.
   53. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5599542)
Which is why I said it drove the final nail into his credibility.


How much credibility did Krugman have with you prior to this "final nail," Ray? (I'm guessing none, and you're talking to for the pleasure of shitting on a hated liberal more than anything else here.)
   54. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:35 AM (#5599543)
Krugman showed -- although there was never really any doubt among sane people -- that he's a complete hack who can't be trusted to provide objective analysis ever again.

If this is the game you want to play, there are other Keynesian economists out there. There was a whole slew of them that came out of MIT in the 70s who seemed to run and chair everything for quite a while. They don't all have the same polemic writing style as Krugman, but they all say the same thing on economic issues. They all seemed to work for Fischer or Dornbusch. Fischer himself is still around.

Krugman's election night tantrum was more about how the Trump administration was going to go to war against institutions and try to turn the US into a plutocracy or perhaps even a kleptocracy. A lot of people still agree with that, but it isn't going to bring economic ruin overnight.

   55. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:36 AM (#5599545)
keep saying there's no such thing as TDS, folks


TDS exists. You have it. Anyone who supports him has it.
   56. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5599550)
The most blatant example of this around here is the way that Ray and David will try to discredit PolitiFact and similar fact checkers when they note the lopsided numbers of lies committed by Trump compared to his liberal opponents, or

It's not really a "discrediting" of them so much as it is explaining to you the limits of what they can practically achieve with this type of "analysis." I don't assume that they're biased; I assume that what they're trying to do can't be done in any meaningful way, certainly not to the ridiculous level of false precision they present it as. Everyone knows that Trump tells many more lies and much taller lies and much more easily fact-checkable lies than any other politician. How much can value Politifact add to that? Not much -- and actually when you present something from them that laughably tries to claim that Obama told only 18 lies in 8 years it hurts your credibility and theirs far more than it helps.


The entire tone of your criticisms of fact checkers has been to discredit them, just as you're doing now, by taking the fact that the exact percentages are imprecise by their nature and then proceeding to use that to discredit their overall findings.

You say that "everyone knows that Trump tells many more lies and much taller lies and much more easily fact-checkable lies than any other politician." But without the fact-checking sites, how are we to certify that with any degree of certainty? Without those sites, it becomes a game of He Said, She Said, and the Truth Must Be Somewhere In The Middle.** Which is what you did during the entire 2016 election campaign, when you repeatedly pumped up Clinton's lies and dismissed comparison to Trump's far greater lying with the cliche that "all politicians lie".

The bottom line is that the fact checkers are subjective in that they don't measure every last statement a politician's ever made, which gives their critics grounds to nitpick. But over the course of time their numbers are a reasonably accurate summation of the relative propensity of leading politicians to twist the facts to suit their own purposes. We'd be a lot worse off without them, especially with President Ananias in the White House.

** Or as David used to like to call it, "Broderism".
   57. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:41 AM (#5599552)
Dilbert guy should totally be listened to when talking about cartoons and syndication and such things he knows about,


If you don't think Adams knows about human behavior than you're simply not reading or watching him in anything more than the random soundbite or snippet.
   58. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:42 AM (#5599555)
keep saying there's no such thing as TDS, folks

TDS exists. You have it. Anyone who supports him has it.


Krugman finally ruined his professional reputation over it.

In a single tweet.
   59. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:49 AM (#5599560)
You say that "everyone knows that Trump tells many more lies and much taller lies and much more easily fact-checkable lies than any other politician." But without the fact-checking sites, how are we to certify that with any degree of certainty?


We can't. Just as we can't "certify with any degree of certainty" that there's not an afterlife.

Politicians make many statements, some true, some false, some of varying degree of half truths and deceits -- but it's not simply the frequency or the vector of each statement that's a necessary component of the type of analysis you think can be done -- it's also the magnitude of each vector. How big was the lie? For what purpose? Etc.

But what I notice about Trump is that he doesn't tell lies merely defensively, such as Hillary did in order to try to cover up her mishandling of classified information; he uses them for offense. Obama and Clinton would lie for persuasion purposes too -- that's one of the points of telling lies, after all, and an example was Obama's "you can keep your doctor" lie -- but Trump goes further than that. He comes right out of the gate with a tall lie that he knows everyone will fact check and classify as a lie. He does it for particular reasons because he's playing a different game than other politicians play in terms of persuasionary tools, which is why the media and others couldn't competently analyze the election or really what has happened since.

It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on which of Trump's lies actually harmed the country or the world, and why.
   60. Fancy Crazy Town Banana Pants Handle Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:52 AM (#5599561)
The problem with the election night tweet -- you're calling it a "tantrum/freakout" to excuse his idiocy -- is that he can walk it back the next day but he can never undo the damage it did to his reputation.

Man, not to pile on. But there is a serious lack of self-awareness in that quote, from Mr Catcher's Throwing Lane...
   61. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5599564)
Once more: you don't understand the subject matter being discussed. It's not that he was wrong; it's that he didn't give himself a chance to be right, because he knew that his prediction was so insane and driven by irrationality -- keep saying there's no such thing as TDS, folks -- that he walked it back.


And again, GASP! He had a moment and backed off from it quickly. I don't think that is disqualifying to ever listen to him on anything ever again. But whatever.
   62. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:55 AM (#5599565)

The entire tone of your criticisms of fact checkers has been to discredit them, just as you're doing now, by taking the fact that the exact percentages are imprecise by their nature
No. That is not the criticism. You're being Andy again. The criticism isn't that the exact percentages are imprecise by their nature (in fact, exact percentages by their nature are exact, not imprecise). The criticism is that the statistics -- not necessarily the analysis of individual statements, but the statistics -- are worthless garbage and do not tell anything remotely like what you think they tell.
   63. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:56 AM (#5599566)
Here's Krugman's latest column, with few predictions but plenty of cautionary notes.

On election night 2016, I gave in temporarily to a temptation I warn others about: I let my political feelings distort my economic judgment. A very bad man had just won the Electoral College; and my first thought was that this would translate quickly into a bad economy. I quickly retracted the claim, and issued a mea culpa. (Being an old-fashioned guy, I try to admit and learn from my mistakes.)

What I should have clung to, despite my dismay, was the well-known proposition that in normal times the president has very little influence on macroeconomic developments — far less influence than the chair of the Federal Reserve.

This only stops being true when the economy is so depressed that monetary policy loses traction, as was the case in 2009-10; at that point it mattered a lot that Obama was willing to engage in fiscal stimulus, and it also mattered a lot, unfortunately, that Republican opposition plus Obama’s own caution meant that the stimulus was much smaller than it should have been. By 2016, however, the aftershocks of the financial crisis had faded away to the point that the usual rules once again applied....

So we’re living in an era of political turmoil and economic calm. Can it last?

My answer is that it probably can’t, because the return to normalcy is fragile. Sooner or later, something will go wrong, and we’re very poorly placed to respond when it does. But I can’t tell you what that something will be, or when it will happen.

The key point is that while the major advanced economies are currently doing more or less OK, they’re doing so thanks to very low interest rates by historical standards. That’s not a critique of central bankers. All indications are that for whatever reason — probably low population growth and weak productivity performance — our economies need those low, low rates to achieve anything like full employment. And this in turn means that it would be a terrible, recession-creating mistake to “normalize” rates by raising them to historical levels.

But given that rates are already so low when things are pretty good, it will be hard for central bankers to mount an effective response if and when something not so good happens. What if something goes wrong in China, or a second Iranian revolution disrupts oil supplies, or it turns out that tech stocks really are in a 1999ish bubble? Or what if Bitcoin actually starts to have some systemic importance before everyone realizes it’s nonsense?

I’m not predicting any of these things, and when the next big shock comes it will probably come from some direction I haven’t thought of. But when it does come, we’ll need an effective, coherent response from officials beyond the world of central banking.

So imagine such an event happening soon. How confident would you feel in the team of Donald Trump and Steve Mnuchin? How much leadership could a weakened Angela Merkel exert in a fragmented Europe?

You might have thought that such concerns would weigh on markets even now. But for whatever reason, investors are currently in what-me-worry mode. And let’s hope that they’re right — that by the time stuff happens, we’ll actually have non-delusional people in charge.
   64. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:57 AM (#5599567)
It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on which of Trump's lies actually harmed the country or the world, and why.

"Barack Obama was not born in the United States."

You can't just disagree with him politically?
   65. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5599568)
If you don't think Adams knows about human behavior than you're simply not reading or watching him in anything more than the random soundbite or snippet.


LOL. Seriously. He is an expert on comics. Period.

He, of course, has as much standing to comment on the rest of the universe as anyone, but he certainly has no more than that. And no I neither read nor watch him, other than the for to often snippets you quote for us. And that is a selected sample of his "best". I shudder to think how stupid the stuff you don't quote for us is.
   66. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 11:58 AM (#5599569)

It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on which of Trump's lies actually harmed the country or the world, and why.
TPP is a terrible deal.
   67. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5599570)
"Barack Obama was not born in the United States."


I was talking more of Trump as a president or candidate, but sure, we'll go with this one.

What was the damage to the country or to the world?
   68. Mellow Mouse, Benevolent Space Tyrant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:00 PM (#5599571)
It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on which of Trump's lies actually harmed the country or the world, and why.


I am a bit different than you. I think lies are generally bad. I understand why even politicians I like occasionally blur the truth or even outright lie, but I don't like it. "Those lies don't matter because you can't prove harm" is basically a non-starter with me, so yeah I think your question is not at all interesting.
   69. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:03 PM (#5599574)
Krugman's election night tantrum was more about how the Trump administration was going to go to war against institutions and try to turn the US into a plutocracy or perhaps even a kleptocracy. A lot of people still agree with that, but it isn't going to bring economic ruin overnight.
No, Krugman made it pretty clear that he expected that the markets would react violently and negatively to the unexpected election of a childish, impetuous, irrational and vindictive idiot.

And it did start out looking like that was the way it would go. Then Trump announced that he was going to launch a trillion dollar infrastructure program, hired the board of Goldman Sachs to run the country, etc, and the sun came up in the morning, and it was suddenly "obvious" to everyone that 2017 was going to be a great year for stocks.

Just like 2018 will be. Unless it isn't, in which case it will have been obvious to everyone that a crash was coming.
   70. Lassus Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:04 PM (#5599575)
Trump's behavior and lies have harmed America as a country to be emulated by other nations.


Then Trump announced that he was going to launch a trillion dollar infrastructure program

Speaking of.
   71. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5599576)
I am a bit different than you. I think lies are generally bad.


Pretty much a simpleton's view of the world, capsulized.

I understand why even politicians I like occasionally blur the truth or even outright lie, but I don't like it. "Those lies don't matter because you can't prove harm" is basically a non-starter with me, so yeah I think your question is not at all interesting.


So you Don't Care.
   72. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:05 PM (#5599577)
TPP is a terrible deal.


My question had two parts. The second part was why.
   73. Sleepy's not going to blame himself Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5599578)
It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on which of Trump's lies actually harmed the country or the world, and why.
The stupid stuff he has said about NAFTA and the withdrawal from TPP definitely hurt the country.
   74. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:06 PM (#5599579)
The entire tone of your criticisms of fact checkers has been to discredit them, just as you're doing now, by taking the fact that the exact percentages are imprecise by their nature and then proceeding to use that to discredit their overall findings.

No. That is not the criticism. You're being Andy again. The criticism isn't that the exact percentages are imprecise by their nature (in fact, exact percentages by their nature are exact, not imprecise). The criticism is that the statistics -- not necessarily the analysis of individual statements, but the statistics -- are worthless garbage and do not tell anything remotely like what you think they tell.


What those numbers tell me (and most people) is that Trump repeatedly lies far more than any other politician. The imprecision lies in the fact that (1) they don't rate every last statement a politician makes; and (2) you can argue about what this or that individual rating should be. But the overall picture it paints is both inescapable and undeniable----a fact which neither you nor Ray even try to deny; in fact when it comes to Trump's serial lying, you've been quite the eloquent chronicler yourself.

It's not a system that's offering itself up as a contender for the Nobel Prize in Statistical Analysis, if such a category even exists. It's a crude but largely accurate method of holding our politicians accountable. If you can suggest a better replacement, feel free to offer it, but so far all you've been doing since Day One on this subject is engaging in petty nitpicking.
   75. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5599580)
Trump's behavior and lies have harmed America as a country to be emulated by other nations.


This is a conclusory statement. There's no analysis supporting it.

(And as for "analysis" I'm not looking for anything scientific; just a reasoned argument as to how his lies have harmed the country. WHY and HOW has this harmed us as a nation to be emulated by others?)
   76. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:07 PM (#5599581)

My question had two parts. The second part was why.
I thought it went without saying that the "why' is that the lie caused us to pull out of TPP.
   77. 6 - 4 - 3 Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5599583)
Krugman knows more about economics than anyone here, obviously. That doesn't mean he is always right on economic matter though, of course, but you should always at least take him seriously.

Krugman certainly knows more about trade economics than anyone here. With respect to other fields (including macro and especially monetary), he has a significantly less sophisticated view than economists who specialize in those fields. Or even those who have been trained more recently. There's a reason why he hasn't published anything in a peer reviewed journal in ages.

He often tries to speak as an authority on topics for which he has a relatively limited understanding and is generally regarded as a charlatan among actual economists, even those who share his policy preferences.
   78. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:12 PM (#5599584)
He comes right out of the gate with a tall lie that he knows everyone will fact check and classify as a lie.


Yes, Ray. This is generally referred to as "the big lie" technique. Want to take a guess where it originated?

It's been a tool of authoritarians and fascists from inception. The purpose is to literally create a reality bubble for the true believers and easily beguiled (like you), not necessarily to "prove" whatever insane conspiracy nonsense their pushing that day (Obama the Kenyan Muslim socialist, child sex rings in pizza parlors (or on Mars,) etc.), but to undermine the very idea of truth itself. Now, let me quote you an outtake of this propaganda technique working perfectly as the fascists want it to, from the real world:

We can't. Just as we can't "certify with any degree of certainty" that there's not an afterlife.
   79. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:14 PM (#5599585)
I thought it went without saying that the "why' is that the lie caused us to pull out of TPP.


Doesn't qualify. In that case it's not the lie that harmed us but is the *action* of Trump to pull out.

Actions can obviously have good or bad consequences. I'm talking about lies.
   80. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:19 PM (#5599588)
No, Krugman made it pretty clear that he expected that the markets would react violently and negatively to the unexpected election of a childish, impetuous, irrational and vindictive idiot.


The futures markets were down several hundred posts when Krugman wrote the article (it was a live-blog style 'hot take' article and not a tweet). The markets recovered by the time trading opened.

Anyhow, Ray is loving the dwelling on the details of one over-reacting liberal. We elect a twitter troll to be President and Ray is shocked, *shocked* when the trolling succeeds.
   81. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5599589)
Doesn't qualify. In that case it's not the lie that harmed us but is the *action* of Trump to pull out.


Jesus ####### christ.
   82. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:20 PM (#5599590)
What those numbers tell me (and most people) is that Trump repeatedly lies far more than any other politician.
The numbers don't tell you that. By definition. The fact checkers aren't tallying the number of lies told by anyone, so they cannot tell you who lies more. There are two ways to tell who tells the most lies:

(1) Count all the lies.
(2) Take a random sampling -- say, every Tuesday each week of the campaign -- and extrapolate.

The former is exact, while the latter is imprecise, but each will tell you that answer. But here's not a way to tell who tells the most lies:

(3) Wait until you see a statement that you find intriguing for one reason or another, and then decide whether it's true or false. And then tally up those.

That is not imprecise; it's just arbitrary. To try in a last ditch effort to get you to understand basic logic: if we want to tell whether player 1 or player 2 was the best offensive player in 2017, we can:

(1) Look at the full-season offensive stats for player 1 and player 2 on bbref.
(2) Take their offensive figures from every other game, or every fifth game, or every tenth game, or the like, and extrapolate.

(Obviously the latter is silly in baseball since it's so easy to count them all, but we could do it.) But here's what we can't do: compare the number of nightly highlights we saw on SportsCenter for player 1 and player 2.
   83. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:21 PM (#5599591)
My question had two parts. The second part was why.

I thought it went without saying that the "why' is that the lie caused us to pull out of TPP.


Much as I agree, it does hurt the case that Hillary at least claimed she didn't back it either...

That said, my bet is that Obama and Congress would have ratified it - Hillary would have issued a statement in opposition to it, and everybody would have basically just hoped the PR fallout would be limited enough for it to be forgotten in a few months.
   84. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:23 PM (#5599593)

Much as I agree, it does hurt the case that Hillary at least claimed she didn't back it either...

That said, my bet is that Obama and Congress would have ratified it - Hillary would have issued a statement in opposition to it, and everybody would have basically just hoped the PR fallout would be limited enough for it to be forgotten in a few months.
Or they'd have made some cosmetic face-saving change so she could say she improved it, and then ratified it.
   85. BDC Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:23 PM (#5599594)
Actions can obviously have good or bad consequences. I'm talking about lies

And of course you can disagree over the good or bad part. But to stay on Republicans' own terms: Trump claims to know a great deal about health care, to have extraordinary influence with Congress, and to have repealed the ACA by getting rid of the mandate (although what part he had in that initiative except eventually signing the bill remains unclear).

Did those lies harm the objective of repealing and replacing Obamacare? I'd say so. As it turned out, he knows nothing about health care, he was a dead loss in working with Congress, and all he's really done with the mandate is made the system (still intact from a lot of points of view) harder to fund.
   86. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:25 PM (#5599595)
Yes, Ray. This is generally referred to as "the big lie" technique. Want to take a guess where it originated?


LITERALLY HITLER

It's been a tool of authoritarians and fascists from inception. The purpose is to literally create a reality bubble for the true believers and easily beguiled (like you), not necessarily to "prove" whatever insane conspiracy nonsense their pushing that day (Obama the Kenyan Muslim socialist, child sex rings in pizza parlors (or on Mars,) etc.), but to undermine the very idea of truth itself.


It's the philosophical bedrock upon which Dittohead Conservatism rests. To look back to the long-ago days of the Great War of Adventure, we learned this about you hippies:

"People like you are still living in what we call the reality-based community. You believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you are studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors, and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
   87. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:26 PM (#5599596)
Krugman certainly knows more about trade economics than anyone here. With respect to other fields (including macro and especially monetary), he has a significantly less sophisticated view than economists who specialize in those fields. Or even those who have been trained more recently. There's a reason why he hasn't published anything in a peer reviewed journal in ages.

He often tries to speak as an authority on topics for which he has a relatively limited understanding and is generally regarded as a charlatan among actual economists, even those who share his policy preferences.


Krugman wrote a liquidity trap article in the 90s which has been helpful in explaining the economy during the zero-interest-rate-policy that followed the 2008 crash... why austerity wouldn't help, why QE wouldn't cause core inflation, etc.

But sure, by all means read other people, too. And if you're a conservative, read Cochrane, Taylor & Mankiw. Or read 'both sides'. Just avoid the Stephen Moores and Larry Kudlows.
   88. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:28 PM (#5599597)
Yes, Ray. This is generally referred to as "the big lie" technique. Want to take a guess where it originated?


Are we still claiming that nobody thinks Trump is Hitler?
   89. Ray (CTL) Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:29 PM (#5599599)
Kind of like how Trump can't simply walk back saying that there were fine people at the neo-Nazi rally by saying the next day that he condemns them.


Or maybe you analyzed this wrong.

How does the Nazi-sympathizer-Trump theory square with him recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital?

That's not a rhetorical question.
   90. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:31 PM (#5599600)
Are we still claiming that nobody thinks Trump is Hitler?


Ray: I think Trump is unique because he uses the big lie technique.
Me: That's a common tool of fascism, originating with Hitler.
Ray: SEE! PEOPLE SAY HE'S LIKE HITLER.

Ray, you moron. YOU said he was like Hitler. You didn't realize it when you did it, because you don't have any actual knowledge of political theory or its history. All I did was inform you of where the technique YOU PRAISED TRUMP FOR USING originated.
   91. Lassus Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:31 PM (#5599601)
and is generally regarded as a charlatan among actual economists

A general majority of qualified experts in the trenches has this view of someone anyone in their field who is famous.
   92. Srul Itza Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:33 PM (#5599602)
Every pundit says dumb stuff.


After a lifetime of devouring things like the Times Op-Ed page and the (old) New York Post Magazine section (you have to be very old to remember that one), I have pretty much stopped reading pundits, op-ed columnists and editorials, whether from the left or right, whether in print or on-line.

Life has become far too short to spend on reading opinions and predictions of dubious origin.
   93. Zonk, Genius of the Stables Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:35 PM (#5599603)
Much as I agree, it does hurt the case that Hillary at least claimed she didn't back it either...

That said, my bet is that Obama and Congress would have ratified it - Hillary would have issued a statement in opposition to it, and everybody would have basically just hoped the PR fallout would be limited enough for it to be forgotten in a few months.

Or they'd have made some cosmetic face-saving change so she could say she improved it, and then ratified it.


Maybe - though, any changes would have then had to go back to all the signatories and basically restarted the process... though, I'm not a trade negotiator - so maybe they leave wiggle room for such events anyway, IDK.

I'd be interested in seeing what happens in an alternate reality where HRC simply does the right thing and supports the TPP -- and calls out BOTH Trump and Sanders for their nonsense on it. I don't think there's a very good case to be made that it was only giving into Bernie that got her past him in the primary and doing so certainly didn't help her in the MW in the GE.

Who knows, maybe she picks up just enough gravitas by standing against the prevailing winds to get those few thousand votes she needed here or there, IDK...
   94. DavidFoss Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:38 PM (#5599605)
A general majority of qualified experts in the trenches has this view of someone in their field who is famous.

There is also a freshwater/saltwater split in economics. The top guys at Chicago think the top guys at Harvard are all charlatans and won't allow their papers to be published in their journals. To a large extent, the top guys at Harvard feel the same way in return. So the two schools of schools each have separate journals.
   95. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:39 PM (#5599606)
What those numbers tell me (and most people) is that Trump repeatedly lies far more than any other politician.

The numbers don't tell you that.


Here's PolitiFact's Donald Trump file. You can infer from its numbers whatever the hell you wish, and spin them however you like.
   96. Srul Itza Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:40 PM (#5599608)
The numbers don't tell you that.


True. Common sense and a general awareness of the world is sufficient.
   97. The Interdimensional Council of Rickey!'s Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:41 PM (#5599609)
How does the Nazi-sympathizer-Trump theory square with him recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital?


The Jerusalem gambit was a bone to the Christian Dominionists who form the base of his fascist under-party. These are the same people who rallied hard for Roy Moore. They want the US to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capitol because they believe there must exists a restored "united kingdom" - i.e. a fully controlled Israeli state from the Jordan to the sea - in order to fulfill prophecy and bring about Armageddon (wherein the armies of Christ will march in and slaughter all of the Jews who refuse to acknowledge Christ the King, themselves.

Trump almost certainly doesn't carry those beliefs, but they're key points with his base, and he knows how to work his crowds.
   98. Misirlou doesn't live in the restaurant Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:42 PM (#5599610)
For Ray

“Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.”


Undermies faith in our elections

“The coverage about me in the @nytimes and the @washingtonpost has been so false and angry that the Times actually apologized to its dwindling subscribers and readers.”

“It's gotten to a point where it is not even being reported. And in many cases, the very, very dishonest press doesn't want to report it.”

“Just leaving Florida. Big crowds of enthusiastic supporters lining the road that the FAKE NEWS media refuses to mention. Very dishonest!”

Undermines faith in the press.

"And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.” (NATO countries agreed to meet defense spending requirements in 2014.)

“NATO, obsolete, because it doesn’t cover terrorism. They fixed that.”


Insulting our allies weakens the alliance.

And that's just through March. I got tired of looking.

   99. Traderdave Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:42 PM (#5599611)
.
   100. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: January 02, 2018 at 12:44 PM (#5599612)
After a lifetime of devouring things like the Times Op-Ed page and the (old) New York Post Magazine section (you have to be very old to remember that one)

I don't remember the NY Post's Magazine section, but I sure as hell remember Abdullah and Oiwin, whose prognostications centered around laying down varying amounts of Valdivielsos and Throneberrys in the hope of instant riches. They were every bit as entertaining as any Murdoch (or Dorothy Schiff)-directed editorial.
Page 1 of 18 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-24-2018
(4 - 10:26am, Apr 24)
Last: Crispix Attacksel Rios

NewsblogOTP 2018 Apr 23: The Dominant-Sport Theory of American Politics
(288 - 10:23am, Apr 24)
Last: Zonk, Genius of the Stables

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (April - June 2018)
(180 - 10:10am, Apr 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOT - 2017-18 NBA thread (All-Star Weekend to End of Time edition)
(2507 - 10:02am, Apr 24)
Last: JC in DC

Gonfalon CubsRiding the Rails of Mediocrity
(14 - 9:58am, Apr 24)
Last: Moses Taylor, aka Hambone Fakenameington

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-20-2018
(39 - 9:52am, Apr 24)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogBrandon Belt sets MLB record, sees 21 pitches in AB before lining out
(3 - 9:36am, Apr 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogForget that one call; Sean Manaea deserves our full attention
(13 - 8:06am, Apr 24)
Last: Bruce Markusen

NewsblogESPN's top 50 players
(65 - 7:58am, Apr 24)
Last: TomH

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 4-23-2018
(18 - 2:06am, Apr 24)
Last: Hank G.

NewsblogDidn't come up here to read. Came up here to OMNICHATTER, for April 23, 2018.
(64 - 11:30pm, Apr 23)
Last: Dale Sams

Newsblog'Family' and sense of 'brotherhood' has Diamondbacks picking up right where they left off
(16 - 8:47pm, Apr 23)
Last: Dr. Vaux

Hall of Merit2019 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(110 - 8:35pm, Apr 23)
Last: Bleed the Freak

NewsblogWhite Sox pitcher Danny Farquhar in critical condition after suffering ruptured aneurysm
(24 - 5:25pm, Apr 23)
Last: Batman

NewsblogCallaway says Harvey might not make his next start after performance in 12-4 loss to Braves
(17 - 4:47pm, Apr 23)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

Page rendered in 0.6661 seconds
47 querie(s) executed