Connect the dots. Dems are constantly using inequality and wealth disparity as election campaigns.

The irony is thier electorates have the highest inequality and getting worse from your accounts.

I learned something new there. If that is a fact, no arguments.

Cities are full of large corporations, factories, Insurance companies, banks etc. Ownership is in the hands of much smaller number of people and far more dependent workers. So wealth disparity is much greater. makes sense.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Close. the reason I beleive we tend to vote right is more self employment. More risk and reliably harsher treatment from left wing govts.

But also I find it very ironic, that the average farm is the closest business we have too the socialist ideal.

Take dairy. The average farm would earn around 1.2 million at the farm gate. I see the average living and growth return too the famers is 360,000 at a 10 year peak.
That means that over 75% of the businesses earnings go back too the community outside of banks.

My reason for mentioning that is it also explains why the larger rural communities outside of cities tends to vote right as well.

The wealth of farms outside of capital gains/banks is shared widely. Rural communities know this. I would lead back too the claim I made that while rural electorates are on average poorer. There is less wealth disparity.

That is the point.

The system is so broken and Republicans will do anything to prevent fixing it.

The surprising factor is that the Republicans claim to use the economy as a talking point but actually undermine it for the benefit of the very small super rich group.

This goes back to another thread on tax cuts and capital gains tax etc.

As long as the rich pay 10% or less of a HUGE income in income tax, and the poor and middle class pay 20% TO 30% of a tiny income - the system will remain broken.

Right now the US interest on debt is higher than the defence budget. Who pays for it. Not the rich but the 90% poor & middle class.

The claim that the tax cuts will lead to more investments and more jobs never happens. In the 2008 GEC Obama got conned by the Rich. They scare mongered him that the economy would collapse if he got tough on those companies and individuals contributing to the GEC excesses. They got the bail outs and ended up using it to pay bonuses and buying back stock.

Again as I said - in last 50 years
Democrat admin = 40 million jobs
Republican admin = 1 million jobs.

Fact.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Connect the dots. Dems are constantly using inequality and wealth disparity as election campaigns.

The irony is thier electorates have the highest inequality and getting worse from your accounts.

So this is all personnel experience. But I mentioned the university extension program.

I was there to talk hunting initially, but on finding out what they were doing, We quickly turned to farming and what the risks and pressures were for farming communities in our respective nations.
Its a commendable program by the way!

They were broadly similar- the risks and pressures.

I would contend that the drivers behind voting choice are largely personal economic.

I say this because human nature.

If your source of income is doing Ok, you have much more leeway to practice your beliefs.
I dont tend towards many people destroying thier business and lifestyle too hold up thier beliefs.
Could be wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
That is the point.

The system is so broken and Republicans will do anything to prevent fixing it.

The surprising factor is that the Republicans claim to use the economy as a talking point but actually undermine it for the benefit of the very small super rich group.

This goes back to another thread on tax cuts and capital gains tax etc.

As long as the rich pay 10% or less of a HUGE income in income tax, and the poor and middle class pay 20% TO 30% of a tiny income - the system will remain broken.

Right now the US interest on debt is higher than the defence budget. Who pays for it. Not the rich but the 90% poor & middle class.

The claim that the tax cuts will lead to more investments and more jobs never happens. In the 2008 GEC Obama got conned by the Rich. They scare mongered him that the economy would collapse if he got tough on those companies and individuals contributing to the GEC excesses. They got the bail outs and ended up using it to pay bonuses and buying back stock.

Again as I said - in last 50 years
Democrat admin = 40 million jobs
Republican admin = 1 million jobs.

Fact.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Connect the dots. Dems are constantly using inequality and wealth disparity as election campaigns.

The irony is thier electorates have the highest inequality and getting worse from your accounts.

Im just turning the cynicism I see in your argument around. Remember half the rich vote democrat.

There are a LOT of people who do this. The POOR Republicans are a great example. They keep voting GOP for cultural reasons as I mentioned.

West Texas has over 30% without medical insurance. For decades they have been poor and the local GOP government does nothing for them.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
So this is all personnel experience. But I mentioned the university extension program.

I was there to talk hunting initially, but on finding out what they were doing, We quickly turned to farming and what the risks and pressures were for farming communities in our respective nations.
Its a commendable program by the way!

They were broadly similar- the risks and pressures.

I would contend that the drivers behind voting choice are largely personal economic.

I say this because human nature.

If your source of income is doing Ok, you have much more leeway to practice your beliefs.
I dont tend towards many people destroying thier business and lifestyle too hold up thier beliefs.
Could be wrong.

I call that realism and not cynicism. It is based on the facts I have been observing and studying since the mid 1970s. I am one of the few who has an international perspective in this forum.

The Right has always claimed moral superiority through Christianity and the economy - investment to create jobs, transfer of technology etc. but failed miserably on all accounts. For over a hundred years they tried to uphold and defend racism, imperialism, unrestrained capitalism etc. at the expense of the poorer countries. The super rich have got incredibly richer since the 2008 GEC.

You saw how some here defend Ian Smith of Zimbabwe & claim that colonialism was good for the countries. They tried to instil that into us in India for 300 years.

After the collapse of communism, it is a new world order. The internet has accelerated the awareness to real time. Criminal oligarchy and neo imperialism are left exposed with no credible defence. The only alternative they have now is to double down and spread conspiracies. Alternative "facts".

The core anti-democratic attack on freedom of ALL people is now exposed.
Project 2025 is an obvious example.

I don't know that half the rich vote Democrat. I have not seen credible data.

quote:

Im just turning the cynicism I see in your argument around. Remember half the rich vote democrat.

Naki talking about West Texas is like me speaking about culture in India. I know nothing about…thus I don’t speak on it.

West Texas is a culture hard for non-west Texas Americans to comprehend…much less a foreigner halfway around the globe.

West Texas people love their lives in West Texas and would change little about it.

Lane there is some wider truth in that.

Rural people as a whole recognise what they give up in exchange for a lifestyle they feel is better. I do it too. I now live in a region that spans a quarter of our nation. yet only has 35-40,000 people. I give up easy access too healthcare, the arts and entertainment, schooling choice. Quick access to airports and public transport- to name a few.

But the choice is worth it!

I suspect strongly that choice is something Naki cant comprehend.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
I call that realism and not cynicism. It is based on the facts I have been observing and studying since the mid 1970s. I am one of the few who has an international perspective in this forum.

The Right has always claimed moral superiority through Christianity and the economy - investment to create jobs, transfer of technology etc. but failed miserably on all accounts. For over a hundred years they tried to uphold and defend racism, imperialism, unrestrained capitalism etc. at the expense of the poorer countries. The super rich have got incredibly richer since the 2008 GEC.

You saw how some here defend Ian Smith of Zimbabwe & claim that colonialism was good for the countries. They tried to instil that into us in India for 300 years.

After the collapse of communism, it is a new world order. The internet has accelerated the awareness to real time. Criminal oligarchy and neo imperialism are left exposed with no credible defence. The only alternative they have now is to double down and spread conspiracies. Alternative "facts".

The core anti-democratic attack on freedom of ALL people is now exposed.
Project 2025 is an obvious example.

I don't know that half the rich vote Democrat. I have not seen credible data.

quote:

Im just turning the cynicism I see in your argument around. Remember half the rich vote democrat.

I would point out you have not presented any data on that at all. Just made assumptions in regard too that issue. So far im the only one who's spent time to look that up.

Not sure what data you want. It is possible I am connecting dots in my mind that are not clear to others.

Show me that the wealthy 10% are categorically voting republican.

Also explain how the wealthy democratic strongholds that you use to present why voting left is better, are not the same people you claim to be voting republican.

And why the greatest disparity in wealth lays in democratic strongholds.

Because you cant have it all ways.

Let me check for details at that granular level. Not sure if there are any cross cuts.

I don't think I said the first point about 10% wealthy categorically voting Democrat. I definitely said that the top 0.1% (may be even to top 1%) are the super rich and have no interest in in a stable booming economy.

Not sure if you want the info or trying to catch me out..... ?

The info is all available sliced and diced any way you want in the US govt website. That is my usual first call source for data and charts.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Show me that the wealthy 10% are categorically voting republican.

Also explain how the wealthy democratic strongholds that you use to present why voting left is better, are not the same people you claim to be voting republican.

And why the greatest disparity in wealth lays in democratic strongholds.

Because you cant have it all ways.

You have used the top 1% and the top 10% in your graphs.

List the top 1% and their voting preference please. from usgovt website.

It is not clear what you want and why. You could easily find the same info if you want to. I do not have the time or care about having defend every single variation.

My conclusions are sound and I do not need to defend them when the info is freely available.

On the other hand, you can prove my conclusion wrong with data if you can. Happy to look at it and admit my errors if any.

You are free to believe what you want. Cheers

Now you are avoiding, and that leads me to beleive you understand my point.

You have inferred that the wealthy prefer poor economies, and that that is a republican trait.

Yet you have no evidence to show those wealthy are voting republican. Yet the evidence presented does show that most wealthy reside in democratic strongholds. Whats more those democratic strongholds have the most inequality.

quote:

Originally posted by jdollar:
Trump has no Christian values. Trump has Trump values….

How about that appellation, "...My Beautiful Christians...".
Da Putz thinks he owns them. Not G_d's Beautiful Christians, but his.

Let a rotten word not come out of your mouth, but only what is good for building up.​—Eph. 4:29.

Someone should as The Donald, "...Do you believe in a Judgement Day for all..."?

Let me be totally honest.

You asked MagineE to quote you so I see you post and wanted me to respond.

I decided to put the past behind and respond in good faith. Genuine sincerity.

You obviously don't belive in that.

You do not understand the stats or how to interpret them. You have misinterpreted them before and I have corrected you. You tried to spin that Democrats created more jobs through illegal immigration. Go figure.

I am going to make one last effort at HONEST debate.

1. Republicans are funded mostly by the rich. Dominated by super pacs and large donors. Small donors are few. Example is Heritage Foundation. FACT.
2. Democrats are funded by mostly small donors and many millions of them. They have far fewer large donors and super pacs. FACT. See this

https://www.politico.com/live-...s-donor-gap-00186687

3. Simple deduction from that is that the rich mostly support Republicans and the middle class mostly supports Democrats. That is why Democrats win popular vote most of the time.
4. You are bringing in addition variables like districs with poor economy versus better economy etc. to try and spin the conclusion. Nothing wrong with that IF you follow the principles of Inductive logic and Deductive logic correctly. You fail to do that. You don't seem to be aware of those principles of logic.
5. Good economy district does not make them rich. Remember 300 million people in the US are middle class or poor. Your claim is false because you say that good economy districts are full of rich people who support Democrats. Really?
6. You then try to spin it further by muddling up rural and urban demographics. We already agreed that rural areas are more traditional and less unionized. Urban areas are more commercial and unionized. Homelessness has nothing to do with party politics. It is social demographic. You do not see many homeless people around your rural district. This is a GLOBAL fact. Check what happened to India in the colonial period when the British destroyed the cotton weaving industry. Millions were displaced and pushed into urban squalour. The same happened in Europe during Industrial revolution.

You are free to believe what you want. But you have no right to attack me with falsehood.

I am not avoiding you now because I decided to accept your request in good faith. You are not reciprocating that.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Now you are avoiding, and that leads me to beleive you understand my point.

You have inferred that the wealthy prefer poor economies, and that that is a republican trait.

Yet you have no evidence to show those wealthy are voting republican. Yet the evidence presented does show that most wealthy reside in democratic strongholds. Whats more those democratic strongholds have the most inequality.

Here is evidence that you are wrong.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe...f-the-top-1-percent/

Here is more info showing the poorest segment vote mostly Democrat. Interesting that the top 20% also vote more Democrat. But not the top 1%

https://www.pewresearch.org/po...-and-veteran-status/


You could have easily searched and found this info but refused. Instead you accuse me of avoiding your point and of understanding it. In effect you are accusing me of dishonesty.

Now we know who is debating in good faith and who is trolling.
___________
Quote shankspony said

Yet you have no evidence to show those wealthy are voting republican. Yet the evidence presented does show that most wealthy reside in democratic strongholds. Whats more those democratic strongholds have the most inequality.

Except that article is 13 years out of date, and you are ignoring that id did research exactly that and posted links from within the last two elections cycles.

And a quick scan of the pew research shows me its saying exactly what Im trying to tell you.

No you are interpreting it the way you want it.

Pew report says top 20% in the wealthy
spectrum prefer Democrats by 56% or so. Similarly the bottom 20% tend to vote Democrat.

You claimed that the top 1 % are Democrat. Not true. All you need is to look at the superpacs. That is hard evidence of donor class supporting parties.

You are just being crafty in trying to discredit me and I foolishly believed that your intent was genuine.

I've seen enough of your inability to understand and interpret data.

Back to ignore I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
Except that article is 13 years out of date, and you are ignoring that id did research exactly that and posted links from within the last two elections cycles.

And a quick scan of the pew research shows me its saying exactly what Im trying to tell you.

I have no idea where you got that idea. You have totally failed to understand what im saying.

Im saying there is no clear line between wealth and voting preference. Except yes at the bottom. hence my comment about democratic strongholds and inequality.
There fore you can not say that the top 1 or 10% vote republican to get wealthier.

Ignore me. I dont care. Thats just your weakness showing.

You guys are misunderstanding what is driving support for republicans, and ignoring explanations because they dont fit your preconceived notions.

That was why I wanted the fergusson talk brought too your attention.

Heres another. Im sure you wont watch, or be able to stomach it all. But its true from start to finish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8cW6Ampr90

I already pointed out the BS and falsehood of the Ferguson talk. He was hiding a lot of facts. Misrepresenting the data to spin a Republican agenda.

I keep pointing to the super pacs and you keep ignoring it.

I show you proof of study and you dismiss it.

Top 1% control most wealth and are part of Heritage Foundation and control GOP.

One of the links I gave said that the top 1% does not think the economy is important but fiscal spending and deficit are key.

That is evidence as they drive the economy down and get richer.

I've given you lots of data but you just spin it.

BTW the Heritage Foundation has over 2000 so called research groups set up over the last 40 years that just cross refer right wing BS. No peer review from reputed academics.

GOP support is 60% of white males. They are getting older. The population is getting more diverse and the GOP is losing popular vote. Hence the race baiting rhetoric.

I can't see to get you to accept facts.

You pointed to poorer Red states. Their economies are growing faster in the last 4 years as college educated Democrats are moving to RED state URBAN centres.

quote:

Originally posted by shankspony:
I have no idea where you got that idea. You have totally failed to understand what im saying.

Im saying there is no clear line between wealth and voting preference. Except yes at the bottom. hence my comment about democratic strongholds and inequality.
There fore you can not say that the top 1 or 10% vote republican to get wealthier.

Ignore me. I dont care. Thats just your weakness showing.

You guys are misunderstanding what is driving support for republicans, and ignoring explanations because they dont fit your preconceived notions.

That was why I wanted the fergusson talk brought too your attention.

Heres another. Im sure you wont watch, or be able to stomach it all. But its true from start to finish.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8cW6Ampr90

The top 1%- by all accounts about half of them vote democrat.

Did you watch the last podcast?

Im trying to get you to leave the rhetoric behind and understand actually why Trump and republicans have so much support.

It brings up much of what you say. Why hispanic and black voters are replacing the lost white vote for republicans.

Why Haris cant gain support.

Your reductionism is very symptomatic of the out of touch "elite" who can not understand why so many dont agree with them.

Ans as too Nial Fergusson. Calling him republican or promoting a republican agenda is lazy.

quote:

Ferguson has been referred to as a conservative historian by some commentators and fellow historians.[83][84] Ferguson himself stated in a 2018 interview on the Rubin Report that his views align to classical liberalism[85] and has referred to himself as a "classic Scottish enlightenment liberal" on other occasions.[86]

Some of his research and conclusions have been criticised by commentators on the left of the political spectrum.[36] In a 2011 interview, Ferguson said elements of the left, "love being provoked by me! Honestly, it makes them feel so much better about their lives to think that I'm a reactionary; it's a substitute for thought. "Imperialist scumbag" and all that. Oh dear, we're back in a 1980s student union debate."[87]

And this seemed relevant from Bill Maher.
@ 3.48s

quote:

Dont lie to me!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q909fW-lfw

Believe me I tried to watch both videos. Hard yo make sense of any serious issues there.

Nial Ferguson has zero credibility in academic circles. Where does he stand among scholars from universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Delhi, etc.?

I did not say he was a Republican. I said that he was pushing Republican agenda. He was speaking to a closed group. Probably Murdochs?

I do not believe he is a liberal. It is like Trump saying he is za conservative and supports Christians. Laughable.

To your question about why people are supporting Trump and the Republicans, there could be many explanations.

1. Why did Germans elect Hitler? Similar reasons for Trump.
2. Ignorance - less educated, less aware, easily influenced. Prejudice. Populishh
3. Culture war - as I already said the South still thinks yhry are in 1860 and with the Confrdrrates. That is how they live life everyday in parts of the South. Ask Lane.
4. Lack of morals and basic decency - why would anyone support a guy who raped a 13 year old with Jeffrey Epstein or molested so many women? Why would anyone support a person who is convicted of fraud on 34 counts, cheats his contractors, lies all the time etc. I know some people think his policies are what matters.

I am done with this.

I've given you plenty of data. Your given me Nial Ferguson and dome YouTube clips.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Believe me I tried to watch both videos. Hard yo make sense of any serious issues there.

Nial Ferguson has zero credibility in academic circles. Where does he stand among scholars from universities like Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Oxford, Cambridge, Delhi, etc.?

.

quote:

Niall Ferguson, MA, DPhil, FRSE, is the Milbank Family Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a senior faculty fellow of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard.

Who has zero credibility? You did not even bother to read the Bio of the man that I provided for you, and now made yourself look- nay proved yourself a fool.

Naki you incredible elitist. I have questioned your "data' and ability to interpret it.
You have failed to be able to answer those simple questions. I doubt you even noticed them.

I Showed you up for your constant history of getting your jollies by faceitiously taunting people with religion right back too the 70 and 80s, Your own words. Self hubris and arrogance in the extreme to think you could say that.

And at the same time I provided rational answers to why possibly 75 million americans might vote for him. Backed up by a stanford and harvard fellow and a respected journalist who shared the opinions.
Your pathetic reply is Hitler, ignorance and lack of Morals.

Whilst you could not even comprehend the basis of what i was saying.

You should stick me on ignore

Now bluster away in your embarrassment.

This was an enjoyable conversation until you started insinuating my intent wasn't genuine, that i was trolling, and using threats of ignore buttons when you weren't getting your way. All because I hold a different view than you. I have held my tongue due to me initiating the conversation and treated you respectfully until now.

But at the point where you do something so stupid as to show you have not bothered even to look at the basic information provided in an attempt, by me to give you all opportunity. Then you dont deserve my goodwill any longer.

Lol.

You have only proved how you conned me into responding in good faith.

Your sly effor was successful, so we'll done.

Trying to take the moral high ground are you.

Just check back at your posts and read. See who accused whom of being a troll first.

Good will? Really?.

You don't even understand the data I present because you asked for it.

You asked questions that I replied to in all honestly. You don’t like it and start name calling.

Just look back at your posts. Who started calling names? Honestly? Good will?

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Lol.

You have only proved how you conned me into responding in good faith.

Your sly effor was successful, so we'll done.

Thats the sad thing Ashok,

I wasn't being sly, or conning you. But you seem so filled with hate that you approach any debate as such. Go through and show where I have tricked you once?

any mistake has been entirely of your own making. You should own that instead of blaming me.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
Trying to take the moral high ground are you.

Just check back at your posts and read. See who accused whom of being a troll first.

Good will? Really?.

You don't even understand the data I present because you asked for it.

You asked questions that I replied to in all honestly. You don’t like it and start name calling.

Just look back at your posts. Who started calling names? Honestly? Good will?

Dude, you said you enjoyed winding people up. Thats trolling. and I recognised it.

I havnt trolled you. yet you want to accuse me of it. there is a major difference.

Why do you feel you know better than a fellow of the stanford and harvard universities? that you seem to hold in such high regard when you dont know hes a fellow of such?

You repeatedly misquote me and lie.

1. You accused me of being a troll and then lied
2. You misquote me when I said I enjoy winding up bigoted haterS who abuse and personally attack me. Like you do now. That is sly and dishonest.
3. You repeatedly fail to understand data and Deductive versus Inductive logic. You just muddle them up and ignore my points about this. You are sly and devious.
4. You lie about Niall Fergudon. You claim he is a liberal when he is a Far right kook. You can easily find lots of articles on the web that disprove his postulates and flaws on his arguments.
5. You repeatedly sidestep my arguments and spin BS. I said Hitler was elected. So was Trump. A Fascist can con the public. You are just parroting Fergusons BS that s fascist can't be elected. Plenty of articles disprove and discredit Ferguson.
6. I have deliberately not mentioned education. Now that you ask - I have 7+ years of advanced study and qualified to challenge any professor in any university in the World. I have been peer reviewed BTW.

Here is the BS Niall Ferguson writes about the West and the Rest

"the West developed six powerful new concepts that the Rest lacked: competition, science, the rule of law, consumerism, modern medicine, and the work ethic"

What BS lies. Science was well advanced in the East over 3000 years before the West. Mathematics, Astronomy, Algebra etc. was way more advanced in India. Einstein thanked the Indians for teaching the West to count. Just read William Dalrymple. The West did not build Pyramids and temples or engineering marvels until much later. Rome and Greece were on the fringe of the East. Again
read William Dalrymple

Rule of Law was very sophisticated under MAURYA empire in 3rd century BC.

Work ethic this is a human trait from millions of years ago. If you did not work, you did not survive. Great civilizations are built with work ethic. Ferguson is pushing the old myth that the blacks and others are less industrious. Nigeria, Congo, Mali, Algeria etc. had libraries and educational institutions superior to Oxford and Cambridge long before them.

History did not begin in the 1400 CE like Ferguson is trying to imply.

Niall Ferguson is a colonialist. Colonialism was not built on work ethic or rule of law. It was imposed by force.

Niall Ferguson

https://yalebooks.yale.edu/202...the-3rd-century-bce/

https://www.nationalgeographic...ue&rnd=1730577093956

More credible reading that Niall Ferguson just ignores.

Alternative facts of the Right.

Oh Naki, You never fail to disappoint.

Qualified to challenge any professor in the world. Thats a fantastic bit of elitism that prove my point.

Ashoka. Not a scrap of relevance. Just hubris.

Face it, by your own mistakes. Not mine. No trap set at all. You told us all that you were arguing in bad faith and lying. You were Not even bothering to check the links provided. Just blustering through on your self superiority and Hubris.

Dont blame me, Just accept it. Admit it, and move on. The damage is done.

Ferguson and Moynihan would wipe the floor with you, In my opinion. They are respected commentators in thier fields. You are here arguing with an uneducated farmer. And tripping over yourself.

quote:

2. You misquote me when I said I enjoy winding up bigoted haterS who abuse and personally attack me. Like you do now. That is sly and dishonest.

Who's being sly and dishonest? And in my view stupid, because what you said is still there to see.

quote:

My point about culture is the same as the Jihadis. Their convictions and passion is not base on facts, logic or reason. Same with MAGA. Same with the Marxists I used to clash with in the 70s & 80s. I used to wind up the Marxists by accusing them of being religious fanatics. Wow - did that get them going! LOL.

Nothing there at all about being abused and attacked. You are simply trying to change the context and appear a victim.

Look, this whole thing is done. You can choose to beleive me or not, but I was consciously being generous and respectful too you until you crossed the line completely.
I even moved on from your first faux pas instead of focussing on it. Because the conversation was worthwhile while I felt you were contributing honestly.

quote:

Originally posted by Nakihunter:
https://yalebooks.yale.edu/202...the-3rd-century-bce/

https://www.nationalgeographic...ue&rnd=1730577093956

More credible reading that Niall Ferguson just ignores.

Alternative facts of the Right.

Aww, poor little thing. You, yourself, ignore many facts or deny their credibility.. which, by your definition, makes you a believer is alternative facts.

I assume you believe anything Paul krugman says, even though every US president and policy maker has ignored him, unless they want to footnote a position that aligns with a "nobel winning economist" as an appeal to authority. Persons with an iq above room temp no more pay attention to his blather than peace seeking persons first consult Obama's opinion on creating peace in the middle east, well, except ole joe, who asked how many millions to put in the next cargo plane. Just to remind you of the timing, obamas nobel was announced in October of his first year off president, for peace in the middle east... which was before he started bombing the middle east

Sir, you BRAG about spinning persons up, including knowingly misrepresentation of their viewpoints... but, if you feel like going after Marxists today, feel free to email the Harris campaign.