Conservatives (me included) have a terrible problem understanding how absolutely blatant and direct inconsistency is not disqualifying.
Got that? When a Republican challenges the results of an election, it’s a “coup.” When the loser is a Democrat, however, such a challenge is absolutely necessary, “just in case.” The next four years are not going to be kind to Paul Krugman and to people like him: they are going to discredit themselves even more thoroughly than they already have, all under the auspices of an insufferable, smarmy intellectual superiority. Can you imagine what it will be like for them when Trump wins a second time?I'm certainly not ready to predict Trump will win in '20 -- it is not hard at all to imagine that he will have had enough of the pounding he is going to take and will retire to his towers, mansions and resorts. While the Clinton's grasp and claw for their next 100 million, and BO embarks on what I predict to be a money grab that will make the Clinton's seem frugal in comparison, even the lowest estimates of Trump's wealth put it in billionS plural. Obviously, given the "Clinton Fund", one of the big things the Clinton's were in the political game for was financial gain. Trump could be too -- but he as a bigger base to start from.
Former Enron advisor Paul Krugman is no stranger to massively incongruous positions. Any deficit under W was an economic disaster, a horrible example of incompetence and malfeasance, while under BO, all deficits -- even the 1.6 Trillion, were "much too tiny".
The point I disagree with on the article is that somehow gross inconsistency will suddenly become obvious to the masses and their positions will be discounted as a result. Based on past history, not likely.
'via Blog this'