Paul Krugman is a neo-maxi-zoom-dweebie.
So there.
Hey, he started it.
I'd love to have serious discourse with honest conservative intellectuals. Unfortunately, they're very hard to find https://t.co/eyTq7Y2Ibx
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) June 5, 2018
From the New York Times:
Why are there so few conservative scientists? It might be because academics, as a career, appeal more to liberals than to conservatives. (There aren’t a lot of liberals in police departments — or, contra Trump, the F.B.I.) Alternatively, scientists may be reluctant to call themselves conservatives because in modern America being a conservative means aligning yourself with a faction that by and large reject climate science and the theory of evolution. Might not similar considerations apply to historians?
But more to the point, conservative claims to be defending free speech and open discussion aren’t sincere. Conservatives don’t want to see ideas evaluated on their merits, regardless of politics; they want ideas convenient to their side to receive (at least) equal time regardless of their intellectual quality.
TFG.
Note: Paul is so intellectual that we had to correct a few different pieces in the copy we grabbed from his article. You’d think someone so superior to us idiots on the Right would know how basic subject-predicate relationships work, right?
And of course, there was that whole cholera thing …
— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) June 5, 2018
Good times.
Don't you just love it when people try to frame the whole ensuing discussion with a priori snark? I want A, but since made up B precludes, no A is possible. Alas.
— Cheesetrader (@cheesetrader1) June 5, 2018
Recommended
Seems a fairly weak way to debate people you know are likely smarter than you are.
They’re not hard to find. They very likely just don’t want to talk to you.
— Kel in Cali (@KinCali1) June 5, 2018
Touché.
O please. Leave NYC and go somewhere *other than* Jersey, Connecticut, or the Hamptons for once. You elitist snob…Jesus
— Caffeine Queen (@Philly_Hoosier) June 5, 2018
Says the economist who predicted economic apocalypse a year and a half ago. Good one.
— Prof B (@BProfB) June 5, 2018
Yeah, how’d that turn out for Paul?
You are wrong A LOT, Paul. That must be hard.
— TexasForever (@jmtomsick) June 5, 2018
Poor guy.
Perhaps they just disagree with you and you can’t see their point of view because you lack an open mind.
— Families Matter (@dlh8) June 5, 2018
Or he simply can’t keep up.
Related:
UNHINGED! Debbie Wasserman Schultz cursed and SCREAMED at House Officials over IT-aide Imran Awan
He NEVER learns! Tom Arnold HUMILIATES himself (again), triggers over ANOTHER Candace Owens tweet
Fact check: DERP! Ben Rhodes’ take on why Trump reverses Obama’s policies is just a HOT MESS
Join the conversation as a VIP Member