FRANK: Paul Krugman made a striking statement!

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 2026

When he did, a cable star noticed: Should Paul Krugman have said what he recently said?  

We can't necessarily tell you! But for reasons which may be instantly obvious, we were intrigued by the first thing he said in the six-minute video he posted on his Substack site.  

That said, we doubt the accuracy of one part of what the Nobel laureate said.  You can watch the full video on YouTube simply by clicking here

Here's the way Krugman starts:   

KRUGMAN (5/31/26): The president of the United States is mentally ill, but everybody knows that. So while we should continue to focus on this degeneration taking place before our eyes, we should also, beyond that, ask what we should do about the powers, the interests, the system that put this horrifying person in a position of power.  

That's the way Krugman started.  We focus on this video because of something he said just a bit later, at the five-minute mark.

That said, is it true? Is it true that the sitting president is mentally ill? Also, is it true that that "everybody knows that?"

As we've repeatedly said, we're inclined to assume that the initial statement is truebut we regard "mental illness" as a conceptually complex term whose parameters are barely understood within this underdeveloped, immature part of our nation's public discourse. 

As we've repeatedly said, we'd like to see (carefully selected) medical specialists asked to discuss that particular claim, but our major journalists have agreed that no such discussion will ever happen.

Beyond that, there's no guarantees that journalists would be able to find medical specialists who were up to the task of producing a clear discussion. There's no guarantee that our journalists would know what questions to ask or would know what tone to adopt in the process of asking their questions.

Meanwhile, how about this. Does everyone know that the president is mentally ill? 

In the most literal sense, the obvious answer is no. If we're talking about "everyone" of a certain professional class, we used to assume that our mainstream journalists believed in the likelihood of some such unfortunate state of affairs, but we have recently come to doubt even that.

Everyone knows he's "mentally ill?" It isn't clear what the claim about the president would even mean, let alone whether the claim is actually accurate. And no:   

Meanwhile, everyone doesn't even believe that the president is mentally ill. For millions of people out in the land, this thought has never occurred.   

That's the way the Krugman tape starts, but that isn't why we're discussing his video statement. We're discussing it because of what he later saidbecause of the later statement which formed the backbone of the opening segment on last night's Gutfeld! program.   

Greg Gutfeld littered his presentation with the usual insulting / Biden deathwatch / misogyny-adjacent jokes. (Does Sarah Jessica Parker look like a horse? She does on the Gutfeld! program. Greg Gutfeld persistently teaches boys and young men to behave this way toward women.) 

The program's host hides behind several beards, but he's a version of loathing unchained. That said, this is the later statement by Krugman on which Gutfeld's monologue focused at the start of last night's show:  

KRUGMAN: Obviously, we need to de-fang Trump as much as possible, and make sure that neither he, nor anybody that follows in his footsteps, has power after the next two elections. 

But beyond that, we really need to do a thorough purging of the United States. We need a de-MAGAfication, and that is— I am not going over the top by using a word that is very similar to the de-Nazification that we pursued successfully after World War II in Germany.  

And we need somethingit's not just the MAGA ideology, it's the whole structure of hugely unequal power, hugely unequal wealth, that made this horrific moment possible.  

It's not going to be easy, butand maybe, it's not going to be doablebut we have to try, because this is an absolutethis is a nightmare.  

As you can see by clicking here, Gutfeld's producers played videotape of the first half of that presentation. In his monologue, Gutfeld focused on the allusion to deNazificationan allusion which may have made the nightmare in question worse.  

Should Krugman have said what he said? We wouldn't have said anything like it ourselvesand during the Gutfeld! segment, amid the standard name-calling and the standard ugly jokes, Kat Timpf made an accurate presentation about statements of this general type:  

TIMPF (6/2/26): The way that Trump and Trump-backed candidates have won so many elections is specifically this stuff. This is the kind of stuff that motivates people, by saying that people who voted for him are Nazis. People say, "Well, I'm not a Nazi," and that drives them to further support this point of view.

GUTFELD: Right.

TIMPF: So not onlyI would say the kindest way to say it is, it's ridiculous. But also, what is he suggesting? You could say he's implying some things that are a little worse than ridiculous.

But again, he's just getting in his own way. All language like this does is make Trump supporters support Trump more than they did before they heard him say that. 

GUTFELD: Yes, exactly 

AUDIENCE: [Cheers and applause]

TIMPF: See? There you go!

What might it have seemed that Krugman was suggesting or implying with his call for "a thorough purging of the United States?" However the statement was intended, it could have sounded various ways to various people. 

Did he mean to say that people who support Trump are Nazis? Not necessarily, but a person could easily think that it sounded a bit like that.

What would a thorough purge of the nation be like? During his six-minute video, Krugman made little attempt to explain, leaving us with no real idea.

But it's surely true that statements like this may tend to harden existing tribal support for the president in question. In the process, such presentations may lessen the chance that we'll ever be able to find a path "back out of all this now too much for us," the path the Frost poem once sought.

Has our nation fallen into a place "now too much for us"a place from which we won't be able to extricate ourselves? That, of course, remains to be seenbut in the book he wrote in the last year of his like, Barney Frank talks about some of the ways the liberal world may be making recovery less likely.  

Frank's book will generate zero interest. Exactly nothing will change after it's published this fall.  But even as the ugly insults and the gonzo behavior continue to flow from vehicles like The Five, what was this celebrated liberal / progressive figure even talking about?  

At this point, the answer isn't entirely clear. Tomorrow, we'll try to say.   

Tomorrow: What he told Jake Tapper


82 comments:

  1. Oh no. Another liberal says something, which may be correct!, that might upset some people. Let me retreat to my fainting couch and get my smelling salts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The Five is a gruesome artefact of Red American corporate culture. On balance, we know of nothing as gruesome in Blue America as the nonsense which is routinely performed on that program."

    Then you haven't been to a Planned Parenthood Killing Center.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah. Here comes the reasonable right winger.

      Delete
    2. He, DG. Is abortion one of those issues that democrats just need to abandon in order to get more votes?

      Delete
    3. Of course not. But abortion is an issue that might lead you to see some humanity in your political opponents. They are not billionaires motivated by greed; they believe, sincerely, that they are protecting human life from slaughter. They deserve a certain grudging respect.

      Delete
    4. DG,
      If only "All Lives Matter" was something more than a way to tell BLM to sit down and shut-up about the systemic racism of the USA, I'd have a lot more respect for the busy bodies who pretend to care about the sanctity of life.

      Delete
    5. You say it's pretending to care because attacking people who hold a moral point of view in good faith has two benefits for you. It allows you to indulge your hatred for people based on a conceit you conjured in your head about them and yourself, and it allows you to avoid confronting a reality about yourself which is that you support the killing of millions of human beings after defining them as sub-human. The same atrocity as Nazis and other historical menaces you would like to believe you are different from.

      Delete
    6. Do you respect the commenter who called planned parenthood a killing center?

      Delete
    7. Way to hijack a thread!

      Delete
    8. If you can't believe the people who support putting children in cages are morally upright and pro-life, who can you believe?

      Delete
    9. DG, how do you support abortion and respond to someone who calls you a baby killer?

      Delete
    10. Make Earning Respect Great Again

      Delete
    11. I’d say that defining when a fertilized egg becomes a “baby” worthy of governmental protection is a difficult moral/political question.

      Delete
    12. It’s not difficult DG. Abortion is murder.

      Delete
    13. That's just a slogan. It's a false statement about the law.

      Delete
    14. So you support the killing of babies?

      Delete
    15. I’m not sure DG has gotten the memo. Roe v wade was overruled, and abortion is now illegal in many states.

      Delete
  3. “However the statement was intended, it could have sounded various ways to various people. “

    And this is the fucking crux of Somerby’s argument. Blame the speaker for the way his words were twisted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, he’s saying that this mode of speaking tends to solidify Trump’s base.

      Delete
    2. That’s an empirical claim, not a moral judgment assigning “blame.”

      Delete
    3. Saying "Black Lives Matter" in public, is a way to solidify Trump's base.

      Delete
    4. DG, you don't understand what @10:07 meant. Timpf and Somerby are clearly blaming Krugman for the way they interpreted his words.

      Do you have a citation for a source showing that Trumpies will support Trump more if they are criticized? It seems to me the stats are now the opposite. People on the right are abandoning Trump as his failures become more obvious over time. They don't seem to be digging in, but fleeing.

      Delete
    5. DG,
      What about the folks who want to force all pregnant women to get abortions, due to their concerns about over-population?
      Do they also deserve our respect?

      Delete
  4. "FRANK: Paul Krugman made a striking statement!"

    Frank didn't say anything like this about Paul Krugman, Somerby did. I do not understand why Somerby insists on attributing to Frank something he didn't say.

    Frank wrote a book that Somerby says no one will read. Frank did not make a comment on Krugman's striking statement because Frank died before Krugman made his statement. But Somerby insists on saying confusing things, because he can, and like Trump's acts, what are we going to do about anything Somerby chooses to say?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The headline is Somerby's way of indicating he will continue his ongoing discussion of Frank, but will take a detour to discuss Krugman's statement. Don't get your undies all in a bunch.

      Delete
    2. Something that has to be explained to be understood is not communicating effectively. Frank said nothing about Krugman's statement. Implying that he did is a lie. Frank cannot complain or clarify himself because he is dead. Somerby has a habit of using the words of dead writers for his own purposes, which is egregious because they cannot do anything about it, being dead and all.

      Frank might not like being associated with Krugman in a way that makes it appear he approves of what Krugman said, or disapproves for that matter. There is no good reason for using Frank's name this way. Somerby needs to cut out this shit. It is not only unprofessional but it is deceptive.

      Perhaps Somerby finds this funny, or he is being slyly clever about breaking rules of attribution, much as when he quotes Robert Frost as implying we won't be able to back out of our current situation, when Frost too is dead and was talking about something else in his famous poem.

      How can we possibly become a better nation and get out of our current mess without getting rid of the incompetent and dishonest MAGA clan now infecting our government? Somerby thinks that insulting the MAGAs will make things worse. I think insulting MAGAs is the only way to get the right to see that their ignorant support for Trump is what has caused our problems in the first place. Someone must get rid of those guys, not just Trump himself. The enablers are as bad as the presumptive tyrant. They all have to go, whether they like it, whether they agree, or not. Krugman is wrong and Timpf's empty threat that MAGA will become stronger if attacked, is an empty threat given the disilluson that is clearly showing that MAGA is over and the house must be swept clean of their debris.

      Delete
    3. Yielding to right wing threats is the opposite of the courage needed to cleanse our government.

      I admire Scott Pelley for risking his job in order to protect press freedom. Somerby demonstrates the opposite here today -- he says we must all cower in the face of MAGA threats to dig themselves in more deeply if any attempt to dislodge them is made. MAGA is over.

      Delete
    4. *FRANK" is the name of the series, "Paul Krugman made a striking statement" is the name of the post.

      Delete
    5. No, that is not how you show the name of a series. It is how quotes are attributed to speakers in a script or transcript. If Somerby wants to use that as a title of a series, he needs to omit the colon (:). Also, the title should refer to what comes in the body of his essay. It doesn't. At the end Somerby says he will talk about Frank another time. Since the essay is about Krugman and Frank had nothing to do with Krugman, and especially said nothing about him, Frank's name does not belong in the title.

      Somerby does misleading things all the time. It is part of his inherent dishonesty. You guys are willing to try to assign meaning to Somerby's incoherence but he didn't say what you are interpreting. No one writes titles the way @10:57 suggests. It is an after-the-fact attempt to make sense of something Somerby has garbled.

      Delete
    6. "No one writes titles the way @10:57 suggests."

      Somerby, clumsily, does. You either accept this as the explanation, or you're left in the corner with a Dunce cap on your head, claiming Somerby wants us to think Frank endorsed a statement made after his death.

      Delete
    7. It's just that this is the third day in a row that he has posted something with 'FRANK:' first and then a title.

      It didn't have quotation marks around the title but I understand how it confused you and led you to mistakenly think it was a quote.

      I can see how that would be frustrating for you.

      Delete
    8. Is Somerby implying that frank wouid have disapproved of krugman’s statement? Frank called Trump an authoritarian populist.

      Delete
    9. The third alternative is to complain that Somerby is misusing titles and misleading his readers. No one is required to accept anything Somerby does. He is not God.

      I don't care whether Somerby is careless or disrespectful of communication norms or just plain stupid. I object to this one because Frank is involved and he, being dead, cannot object himself to the stupidities Somerby implies by misusing Frank's name.

      Somerby has in the past used such titles to mock people and to make sarcastic jabs at others. Assuming he is too stupid to have used Frank's name on purpose may be a mistake. That leaves us wondering what he meant by using Frank's name to attack Krugman, when Krugman and Frank have both been important Democrats. Keeping in mind that Somerby may not be any kind of Democrat, why would associating the two names make any sense? For example, might Somerby be now implying that Frank has lost influence on party matters but perhaps Krugman too is out-of-style or getting too old to be listened to, in order to weaken the impact of a very apt and important statement by Krugman, being vociferously opposed by Gutfeld's crew?

      He has tainted Frank by saying that no one will read his book. Then he uses Frank (by association) to taint Krugman, who is actually saying something very important. Is he doing this on purpose? Most likely, since that is how propaganda works. It may seem trivial to take this dig at Krugman (and Frank), but someone keeps paying Somerby to write such shit. The right uses lots of such trivial and seemingly small acts (calling Talarico Talafreako) cumulatively to get their messages across.

      I liked Barney Frank and I admire and respect Krugman. It angers me that Somerby would disparage Frank's book so soon after his death in order to take a gratuitous swipe at Krugman, who is telling the truth in my opinion, not calling MAGA Nazi.

      Delete
    10. Trump is insufficiently intellectual to identify his own theories using any terms such as authoritarian or populist. He is entirely un-selfaware. He has no ability to introspect onto his own ideas. He identifies opportunities for personal profit and self-aggrandizement and pursues them ruthlessly using principles and tactics taught him by Roy Cohn, Nixon's lawyer. The rest is sadism and pursuit of pleasure, not policy. The policy is coming from scum like Stephen Miller and pursuit of profit by scum like Elon Musk.

      Delete
    11. And our blogger host demands that we pity this man named Trump.

      Delete
  5. How does Jake Tapper have any credibility after the stunt he pulled lying about Biden in order to push him off his own ticket? Reporters are not supposed to be right wing operatives. The blurring of the line between making news and reporting on news by assholes like Tapper should have made him untouchable as a journalist, yet Somerby is going to quote his interview with Frank, presumably tomorrow although Somerby routinely breaks such promises.

    I do not care what Tapper says or what Frank says. Frank is gone and Tapper is a deeply dishonest person working for the right. I suppose that may be why he appeals to Somerby. I do notice that Somerby will quote anyone who agrees with him (even though many have no idea who Somerby is and are mainly expressing their own views, not supporting an idiot like Somerby).

    If you are going to pretend to be left wing while shilling for the right, you cannot pay much attention to where your sources come from or the consistency of the ideas you yourself present. That makes Somerby's own views a hodge podge of unclearly stated nonsense that means nothing excerpt for ultimately bashing the left. Today he does it by telling us that Krugman (who Somerby used to refer to as the left's MVP) may possibly have gone too far when he compared MAGA to Nazis and stated that MAGA had to be scrubbed from our govt to prevent further catastrophes. Any sane person would see that Krugman is only relating the cult-like true believer of MAGA to Nazis, and not the contents of the bankrupt political philosophies.

    Somerby is sensitive to being called a Nazi due to his own pretense about not supporting our own brand of neo-Nazi on our own right wing. Recall that Somerby played along when Trump said he wasn't really talking about Nazis when he praised the good people at the Unite the Right Rally. Then he pardoned all the good ole Proud Boys while his brown shirts target not only immigrants but protesters, literally, shooting and killing them in our streets.

    But Krugman makes an inoffensive and obvious statement about needing to cleanse our govt of MAGA bedbugs and Somerby thinks he's gone too far. Never mind that there is real news today. Trump's library has conveniently lost all of his DMs while a court says "no he didn't". Trump is quitting on the job because he is bored with the Iran war he started. Democrats unexpectedly won in red strongholds and Somerby is still laser focused on using Frank to promote his own attacks on Democrats, while claiming he too is true blue when he so obviously isn't.

    But Kat Timpf had something important to say. She is a red comedian who is never quoted saying anything until she accidentally says something that support's Somerby's cause. Then she is suddenly someone Somerby must quote: "All language like this does is make Trump supporters support Trump more than they did before they heard him say that."

    The point is that no one cares what Trump supporters support. They are fading away as they leave MAGA and abandon Trump. That's why Trump's approval ratings are falling precipitously. No one sane supports him any more. So, Trump will fall back on force. Krugman is right that all traces of Trump must be removed from govt once Trump stops being president. Timpf is wrong. The more Trump fails, the less support he will have and his decline has already started and will continue to gain speed. Trump is toast. So is Somerby. And Democrats will not be using Frank's book as a self-help manual to handicap our party in our moment of opportunity. And that's a good thing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There will never be anything as funny as Republican voters hanging from a light poles in front of gas stations, that's for sure.

      Delete
  6. Did Krugman mean to say that people who support Trump are Nazis? No, but he did mean to say that people like me are SIMILAR to NAZIs. But, he did not identify any specific way that he thinks we're similar to NAZIs. That's surprising omission for someone as brilliant as Krugman. Well, TDS makes smart people stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. David,
      I don't want to put words in Krugman's mouth, but I assume he referring to the over the top racism, misogyny, and pedophilia support that are the main ideology of Trump voters.

      Delete
    2. No David, he meant that people like you are similar to those who tolerated and enabled the Nazis. You are similar because you allow wrongdoing out of fear or self-interest and have failed to protect those being scapegoated (as the Jews were in Germany). You are distorting what Krugman said in order to call him stupid.

      Delete
    3. oh my, the Jewish Zionist atheist white Christian nationalist fascist amatuer eugenicist has had his fee fees hurt. whatever can we do about it? How about go take a flying fuck, dickhead in cal, you fucking Nazi freak.

      Delete
    4. DiC, krugman is saying the Trump base is cultish, in that it tolerates unprecedented corruption, lies, unconstitutional behavior, doj used as a weapon. The tolerance for this stuff is destructive to our country and needs to be rooted out. You certainly don’t want to do anything about it

      Delete
    5. Speaking of which, what in the name of all that is holy is Pulte doing in as part timer DNI, when he isn't corruptly abusing his power as Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency?

      Delete
    6. @11:08 - If Krugman had said that, one could have an intelligent discussion. We could have discussed the evidence for and against each of these accusations.

      You and I could do that now. What is your evidence that I and other Trump voters support "over the top racism, misogyny, and pedophilia?"

      Delete
    7. because you live with your head up trump's ass, dickhead

      Delete
    8. Hey, DiC, now deal with what 11:28 said. Or is that spot in?

      Delete
    9. Please show respect to David in Cal by not mentioning Trump voters threw a GIGANTIC temper tantrum at the United States Capital, just because the votes of black people were counted in the 2020 Presidential Election.

      Thank you for your attention to this matter.

      Delete
    10. Why, in the name of what 11:18 wrote, would the Trump base tolerate the things 11:28 wrote?

      "Tis a mystery.

      Delete
    11. Uh, @11:28, Nazis are not despised because they were "cultish, tolerated unprecedented corruption, lies, unconstitutional behavior, and used their justice Dept as a weapon."

      But, at @12:00's request I'll give it a try
      -- cultish? I don't even know what that means
      -- unprecedented corruption? Where are all the convictions?
      -- lies? Yes, although many of the lies are exaggerations. Trump's opponents also tell a great many lies
      -- unconstitutional behavior? Trump has pushed the Presidential powers, but he obeyed the Courts when they held him back. He even obeyed the Courts, when the Court decision itself was clearly erroneous. Other Presidents also pushed their powers, such as Biden's illegal student loan forgiveness.
      -- Used Justice Dept as a weapon? True, but not nearly as badly as Biden did. Still, two wrongs don't make a right. This is a valid criticism of Trump.

      Delete
    12. -- unprecedented corruption? Where are all the convictions?

      Keep in mind, when the fucking media refers to trump’s fucking DOJ, the fucking media actually means trump’s fucking law.

      Delete
    13. “Where are all the convictions “ good question, DiC.

      Delete
    14. No one has been saying that Trump and Nazis are the same, except David. They are saying that just as the Nazis were tolerated in Germany, Trump has been tolerated in our country. There is a little overlap between Trump and Nazis in things like his invasion of Venezuela and Iran (and his threats against Cuba and Colombia) and threats to take over Mexico and Canada and Greenland (lebensraum), his attacks on architecture and the arts, his abrogation of treaties, his building of camps and detention of both enemies and scapegoated people, his narcissism reflected in long repetitive bombastic speeches, and so on.

      But the point is that Hitler couldn't have risen to power without the support of others who saw his evil but sought their own self-interest. After Hitler died, Germany had to weed out the corruption in his regime in a process called de-Nazification, and that is what Krugman is saying must happen in the USA. Those who support Trump in order to prosper financially (Kushner, Lutnick, Musk and other business leaders and tech bros, crypto grifters and real estate assholes) will need to be weeded out of their positions in govt to stop the corruption and return the US to a sound financial status. Provoking wars to benefit the oil industry is a ridiculous abuse of power that Trump committed because he is crazy, but others prospered from because they have no shame. Everywhere you turn, someone is prospering because of Trump's seeming nonsensical decisions. There is bribery and grifting everywhere in our govt.

      I do not see how anyone can object to rooting out corruption, so it doesn't surprise me that Somerby is distorting Krugman's message in order to oppose it as calling MAGA a bunch of Nazis, when he didn't say that. He is saying you cannot get rid of Trump as insane without dealing with the residue of greedy supporters looting our resources.

      Delete
    15. Trump doesn't obey court orders.

      Delete
    16. DiC: You were outraged about the oh so massive corruption of Hunter Biden serving on the board of a Ukrainian company, but remain utterly silent while Trump’s sons and son-in-law make massive profits off of their family name, winning government contracts, gaining multi billion dollar investments, insider trading, crypto, etc. Ivanka is trying to open a billion dollar luxury resort in Albania, and people are protesting like crazy over there.

      You are a real freaking hypocrite.

      Delete
    17. @12:38 - Please list a bunch of court orders that Trump disobeyed. You can't.

      The only questionable one was where there was a question of whether a judge's order became effective when he said it or when he wrote it. There was also a question of whether a judge could command the US military outside the US.

      Delete
    18. @12:37 "I do not see how anyone can object to rooting out corruption."

      One would think so, but the CA Assembly just passed the so-called "Stop Nick Shirley Act." Nick Shirley embarrassed the government by exposing corruption, so the pols drew up a bill to restrict activities by Shirley and other independent journalists.

      Delete
    19. Your attempts at deflection are pathetic, David. Now respond to what 12:42 said.

      Delete
    20. -- unprecedented corruption? Where are all the convictions?

      Are you fucking serious, dickhead?

      DiC is shameless. The next good faith argument he makes will be his first.

      Delete
    21. D in C. I'm mystified. You acknowledge that Trump has used the Justice Department as a weapon - "but not nearly as badly as Biden." I'm a lawyer. What you say seems absurd. Please set out the facts (objectively, if possible) that support what appears to be an absurd assertion.

      Delete
  7. "And we need something—it's not just the MAGA ideology, it's the whole structure of hugely unequal power, hugely unequal wealth, that made this horrific moment possible."

    This is the part that Somerby should have highlighted. Instead he was triggered by the mention of Nazis. Krugman's main point is that regardless of whether Trump is crazy, there is a whole structure of people that elected him and kept him in office despite his insanity, enabling the damage Trump has been doing to our country. Krugman says that structure must be addressed and dismantled. He calls it unequal power and unequal wealth. It should be obvious that putting unqualified people into high office so that they can transform our nation into an authoritarian state in which billionaires loot our nation's resources for their own gain, is a bad idea and has not been working out well for our people.

    Somerby frames the problem as people not recognizing Trump's insanity. Surely there are people who do not consider Trump insane. But there are wealthy people who are manipulating Trump and using his insanity as cover to enrich themselves at our nation's expense. Those are the people who must go, Krugman says. Somerby has never acknowledged that there are so many self-interested and sociopathic people profiting off of Trump's insanity. Krugman is pointing at that problem. Somerby's attempt to call Krugman foolish for insulting MAGA is itself crazy when the problem of the hangers on who enable Trump must be taken seriously and dealth with. We have a nation of right wing criminals engaged in their own grifts who must be prosecuted and removed from office (at a minimum). Somerby ignores that part of Krugman's message to call Krugman rude for insulting MAGAs.

    What do we do about the guys who are the modern equivalent of the men who were prosecuted in Nuremburg? What do we do about Patel and Hegseth and Noem and Bovino and Homan and that new DNI guy? What do we do about Musk and Thiel (who has fled the country)? How culpable is Susie Wiles? There is a large group profiting off of Trump's insanity. Should Mike Johnson be blamed? I think yes and Krugman is right that they all must go. At the very least, their crime is elder abuse, but those who are not insane, merely greedy, must be held accountable to our nation. Krugman is right about that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am very upset that Trump is pleasing ranchers by trying to eliminate the American bison, prohibiting them from grazing on public lands (competing with cattle). This exemplifes one of hundreds of similar acts that have hurt our nation to benefit a small group of wealthy men.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Didn't this guy get caught with child porn on his computer?

    ReplyDelete
  10. 2026 Generic congressional ballot April vs Now

    April:
    🔵 Democrats: 53%
    🔴 Republicans: 43%

    Now:
    🔵 Democrats: 49% (-4)
    🔴 Republicans: 48% (+5)

    Marquette poll | 5/20-5/26 | (Likely Voters)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Frank's book will generate zero interest. Exactly nothing will change after it's published this fall."

      Well, if it is published in Fall, it will be too late to affect the midterm elections.

      Shouldn't we care about Frank's book because it is about Frank? If people were not taking his advice before he died, why would they take it afterward?

      Delete
    2. I got polls too:

      “The latest on the generic ballot
      Updated June 3, 2026”

      “Republicans haven’t had a great May when it comes to the generic congressional ballot. They began the month with 42.3 percent support in our average, compared to 41.6 percent today. Our generic ballot margin is up to D +6.9. That’s the bluest it’s been all cycle.”

      https://www.natesilver.net/p/generic-ballot-average-2026-nate-silver-bulletin-congress-polls

      Delete
    3. Generic ballots are not about Trump.

      Delete
  11. I think this whole policing of every utterance by every liberal just proves what snowflakes right wingers are, but it’s also a way of trying to shut liberals up who say undesirable things, (undesirable to whom?) all while allowing right wing attacks to go unchallenged.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “However the statement was intended, it could have sounded various ways to various people. “

    “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

    I mean, various people thought that sounded like “I invented the Internet. “, so Gore should not have said what he said. (Except Somerby never blamed Gore for the way that statement was interpreted.)

    When people said “Black Lives Matter “, some people thought that meant “you’re saying white lives don’t matter.” So no one should’ve said “Black Lives Matter.” This is what Somerby‘s argument ultimately boils down to in my view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When people said, "All lives matter," they were called racists. Just this week British pol Nigel Farage was criticized for saying, "White lives matter just as much as black lives."

      According to wiki, "White Lives Matter is a white supremacist slogan that emerged in 2015 as a reaction to the Black Lives Matter social justice movement that started a few years prior. The phrase has been used by neo-Nazis, Neo-Confederates, and other white supremacist groups."

      Delete
    2. DiC, my point was that the people who said “black lives matter” were called racists because “Black Lives Matter” was accused of implying that white lives don’t matter. That’s twisting its meaning.

      Delete
    3. They were called racists because their statement "all lives matter" was made in the context of hearing "black lives matter" and denying that any special attention was needed to overpolicing and police violence against black people.

      Words are not interpreted in isolation from the context in which they are spoken. David wants to ignore context.

      Delete
    4. The press disliked Al Gore (Somerby never explores why) so they twisted his words to embarrass him. Somerby was right to complain about that, but he never did come to terms with why the press did that. Around the same time, lawyers twisted Clinton's words to accuse him of perjury.

      Somerby abuses language for his own purposes then complains when others do the same.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. When people said, "All lives matter," they were called racists. Just this week British pol Nigel Farage was criticized for saying, "White lives matter just as much as black lives."

      This misunderstands what "Black Lives Matter" slogan was saying. The slogan pointed out that the police -- and the society at large -- acts as if Black lives don't matter; it obviously doesn't suggest that Black lives are the only lives that matter. However, you and your kind either deliberately misinterpret the statement or just don't have the intellectual wherewithal to understand it.

      Delete
  13. "They do terrible, stupid things."

    "It's your fault that they do them because you call the things they do terrible and stupid."

    ReplyDelete
  14. Resources are finite. If more resources are taken for one purpose, then less resources will be available for other purposes. E.g.
    1. There are a finite number of athletic medals. Medals won by trans women reduce the medals available to biological women. So, support of trans is misogyny.
    2. Schools have finite resources. Time spent teaching non-English speaking illegal immigrant children means less time available to help poor black students. So, support for illegal immigration is racist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3. Multi billion dollar wars of choice cause severe economic disruption and hardship when that money could be spent to help the poor and middle class.

      Delete
    2. David sounds ridiculous making argument #1 because of how very few trans athletes are competing much less winning any medals.

      This kind of argument about immigrants stealing from black kids is called zero-sum reasoning and it is not how schools are structured, given that lessons are taught to groups, not individual students. Minority groups have been pitted against each other like this since time began. Are not girls stealing resources from boys in schools?

      Delete
  15. For a person belonging to a party that just hates hates hates identity politics, DiC sure is going on and on today about racism and misogyny.

    ReplyDelete