DomeGuy

Why should abelsim be given latitude that we wouldn't extend to racism, sexism, or anti-Semitism?

My opinion is that embarrassed bigotry in private is still bigotry. It's good that those with such feelings recognize the harm that they bring (or at least the public shaming that they can suffer), but it makes for a simpler life to just excise such hatreds whenever you can.

It was a meat-packing plant that handles a significant portion of the beef processed in the whole country. Beef that we can't really export anymore because Trump thinks trade deficit is the same thing as a credit card and RFK is trying to kill us all.

Climate change may have had a hand in the drought, but the proximate cause for this is much more likely Trump's incompetent trade policy. If Tyson didn't see a recession coming, they'd likely retooled the plant to something else rather than scuttle the whole thing.

That sounds like a great idea actually.

Zelda's on like it's 7th reboot or something.

The same folks sending "the left are subhuman!" to the right aren't also sending "the right are Nazis!" to the left. That would be a duplicate signal and inefficient.

Instead, they're sending "both sides suck" to the middle.

It's not racism. It's just that sysadmins are goths who prefer dark mode, and were esthetically aggravated by the discordant terminology.

Because right-wing propaganda is "become Nazis, the left are all sub-humans" and the left wing propaganda is "what the fuck, the right are all Nazis!?"

It's hard to spot propaganda when it's just the truth spoken loudly.

A mere casual endorsement is not an appeal to authority. If you don't like the guy that's fine, but it's not a logical fallacy to, for example, describe a late night comedian as "a kinda funny guy.". (A logical fallacy would require that someone assume Krugman is RIGHT because of his record, not that he's merely worth reading )

How is dismissing someone because of where they worked NOT an ad hominem attack?

How is splitting hairs over which awards given by the swedish government are and aren't "nobel prizes" NOT a distinction without a difference?

You didnt attack any of his actual credentials, though. You just said that he should be dismissed because he wrote for a particular newspaper and the award he was given by the Swiss government was not one of the awards given by the Swiss government funded by the gift of a 19th century arms merchant.

If you want to rebut my statement that Krugman "has a pretty good track record", please do so! But you didn't, and haven't, and instead asserted your own biases as fact.

Which is obviously your right to do but, again, is a really weird response to a "who is this guy" post.

Go read the actual text of the US Constitution . The answer is a quirky technical "well, theoretically yes but practically no."

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-2/section-2/clause-1/

The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

That last emphasized line means that if the US Congress were to impeach and remove a president for bribery or a criminal conspiracy, they could also negate any pardons given to POTUS's collaborators.

Of course, since no US President has ever been removed from office by congress's impeachment power, and it's uncertain if a post-term impeachment and conviction would itself pass the inevitable SCOTUS appeal, this is even less likely than the US Congress awarding a no-majoroty electoral collage vote to the other major party.

An ad hominum attack and a distinction without a difference is a hell of a response to "who is this guy".

Do you want to show the class where on your wallet the Keynesian model of economics touched you? (Or do you perhaps have a "Krugman sucks and you shouldn't listen to him" link you'd like to share?)

Paul Krugman is a nobel-prize winning economist who used to have a column in the NY Times. He has a relatively impressive record of predicting terrible things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

And while I certainly don't want to push back on the difference between heroin and other opium derivatives, it's worth noting that legally speaking they're both exactly as illegal when not used as prescribed for the treatment of pain or disease.

It's not a blog post about heroin or opiates, though, so quibbling over the imperfections of his analogy is kinda missing the point. Please give it another read if you have a few minutes; the analogy is fairly apt, though very depressing as an American.

Value for resources is also highly subjective.

If I have zero water and $50, but you have 50 waters and $0, I would value one of your waters more than one of my dollars and you would value one of my dollars more than one of your waters. And so we would trade, and both be happier for it.