Sorry people, but I will always be an independent…

Senate Democrats are pushing back against attempts to pass a compromise bill in the lame-duck session that could speed the introduction of driverless cars onto U.S. roadways, saying it lacks safeguards that would protect drivers.

Link here, and I’m sure you know the House Democrats don’t want to pass the new NAFTA.

Elsewhere, in Chicago, the war on democracy continues:

To get on the ballot, Krupa was required to file 473 valid signatures of ward residents with the Chicago Board of Elections. Krupa filed 1,703 signatures.

But before he filed his signatures with the elections board, an amazing thing happened along the Chicago Way.

An organized crew of political workers — or maybe just civic-minded individuals who care about reform — went door to door with official legal papers. They asked residents to sign an affadavit revoking their signature on Krupa’s petition.

And the background?:

The David is David Krupa, 19, a freshman at DePaul University who drives a forklift part time. He’s not a political powerhouse. He’s just a conservative Southwest Side teenager studying political science and economics who got it in his head to run for alderman in a race that pits him against the most powerful [Democratic] ward organization in Chicago.

Here is the story, it’s not just North Carolina where electoral law is treated with less than the utmost respect.

p.s. if you think or write “false equivalency” in response to this post, you fail the Intellectual Turing test.


Don't mess with Mike Madigan, who looks forward to regaining full power on accounta Illinois electing the poster child for unearned white male privilege as Governor (no one noticed) -- a born billionaire failson who splashed a record $170 million of family money on the office. Yay Illinois.

Everything you wrote could be said about another, particular person in perhaps a higher office. I won't say who but most who read will my comment will know quite well who I might be referring to.

I'm pretty sure Beto lost in TX.

This website definitely has aall the nformation and facs I needed concerning this subject and didn't know who
to ask.

Wisconsin, Michigan, and North Carolina... but also Chicago! That's why, sorry folks, I'm an independent.

Sorry, but who cares?

Forget it, David, it's Chi-town.


The other bit of background why this is an amazing story worth reading is that far more revocation affadavits were lodged with authorities than the total number of signatures on Krupa's original application.

That's the Chicago way!!!

Two rules for life:
1. The Simpsons did it first.
2. If not Simpsons, then Seinfeld.

In this case it was the Simpsons. Massive voter fraud in mayoral election, and all of the names came from gravestones in the cemetery. A good episode, although there it was Republicans who rigged the election.

I didn’t realize Springfield was in Metro Philadelphia.

Well, not only were there more revocations, but there were also very few matches between the revocations and original signatures, so Krupa should still qualify for the ballot. The article also claims that revocations have to be notarized and that lying is a felony. But in Madigan's ward, will Krupa end up on the ballot? And will anybody be charged for all the false (sworn, notarized) revocations?

You are comparing hard nosed but otherwise perfectly legal campaign tactics to outright theft of ballots. I'm genuinely embarrassed for you. You're obviously intelligent enough to understand why your argument is so weak but yet you feel the need to make it anyway. In writing. Where it can be read by anyone. A fig leaf so you can continue to preen about both sides doing it and that you, a high minded independent, will remain above the fray.

Your trivialization of what is happening in North Carolina by way of this ludicrous comparison is, in fact, advancing a conveniently right-wing partisan world view. There's nothing remotely independent in your thinking or argument here.

You can do much better than this.

ITT fail.

Took me until paragraph 2 to get that the illegal one is supposed to be NC. Would gerrymanders be legal in your view if there was no race involved, like the original British gerrymander?

My bad, equally non-diverse MA

It's not the gerrymandering, it's the dirty tricks pulled with absentee ballots.

A false affadavit is not perfectly legal, it is the opposite of that.


This is just a single story scooped from a mighty river.

Hard-nosed? Yes
Perfectly legal? Hmm
Time-honored? For sure

"Chicago ain't ready for reform."

- Paddy Bauler, 1955

You might want to read the article before posting in the future so you don't humiliate yourself like this.

Dude, he’s not saying that what the Democrats did is as bad as what Republicans did. He’s saying that to identify with a particular party, you have to generally like what they do. And the Democrats do lots of things that he doesn’t like.

Party affiliation isn’t a life or death thing. I wouldn’t want everyone who voted for the Democrats this time around to vote for them forever. I just want a sensible conservative opposition (or perhaps, classical liberal to use the European term) to return to American politics.

I just want a sensible conservative opposition (or perhaps, classical liberal to use the European term) to return to American politics.

I just want all this talk of enforcing the immigration laws to go away because low class and I want a cheap au pair.


Classical liberalism died in 1918. Get over it.

Coolidge, Ike, Buckley, Goldwater, Reagan, both Bushes, McCain, and Romney were good enough for me. I'm a classical liberal but not an ideological purist. I'm with Concerned Neutral. Sensible conservative/moderate opposition.

Are the signatories autonomous agents? Either the affidavits were forged or not. If forged, it should be easy to prove; if not, then I see no foul.

"The number of revocations far exceeds the number of signatures Krupa collected. That means false affidavits were filed with the elections board." And "Lying on a legal document is a felony."
The affidavits don't have to be forged to be fraudulent, if people revoked petition signatures they didn't write. Apparently about 1000 felonies, but I'm guessing fewer people involved.

From the link:
“We turned in 1,703 signatures. We compared them to the 2,796 revocations, and found only 187 matches, meaning only 187 people who signed David’s petitions filed revocations,” Dorf said. “So, what about the 2,609 people who didn’t sign for David but who filed revocations? That’s fraud. That’s perjury. That’s felony.”

Not to be pedantic, but you could draft the affidavit to be a conditional revocation - "if I signed such and such document, I hereby revoke my signature." That would not be perjury even if you did not sign the original. That would even make sense as a true statement if you are in an environment where you asked to sign lots of petitions. But since this operation seems to have been run by the D-team, I am not confident that they would draft their affidavit to avoid false statements.

What sort of pressure could have been put on those swearing affavits repudiating there signatures?

If this isn’t troubling to you, I don’t think your judgement can be relied on in anything politically related. Twenty years ago all forward thinking Democrats found the Chicago Way an embarrassment and an affront to what they claimed to believe in.

"What sort of pressure could have been put on those swearing affavits repudiating there signatures?"

I'm guessing that they were confused by what they were signing and it was misrepresented as something else. At any rate, I bet the revokers were on the low end of the IQ curve.

The attorney for the kid probably made a tactical mistake by characterizing the revokers as "felons." What he should have done was portray them as victims and try to get the media to interview as many of them as possible to try to get to the bottom of things. The names and addresses are public record, after all. I think that a lot of the revokers and also the people soliciting the revocations will end up being MIA and unidentifiable.

Candidate takes that position here

“They had to have been told that it was for something it wasn't for, or coerced into doing it somehow, and we actually had a lot of people who messaged me and said that was the case they only signed because it was brought to them three times a day for a week,” Krupa told the outlet.

"p.s. if you think or write “false equivalency” in response to this post, you fail the Intellectual Turing test."

I think "Squirrel!" when I read this post. Certainly it is all true, and the kind of thing that makes me an independent as well, but I don't think it ranks high on the list of threats to American democracy.

(May the old "Russia lol" crowd enjoy the Butina testimony.)

“(May the old "Russia lol" crowd enjoy the Butina testimony.)“

At some point, even you anon, must be compelled by the shred of cognitive decency lingering in the basement of your soul to say: “Butina ... damn, is that all I got?” (And I’m someone who looks at our orange maned Prez and thinks, “was that the best the Republic come come up with?”)

Anyone who has been following the news knows that there is a long list of Russian interactions by this point, but she is interesting, because she leads to a connection none of us really could have imagined 5 years ago.

It seems that the American National Rifle Association became a conduit for Russian intelligence to deliver money to a Republican candidate for President of the United States.

As I say though, it seems. It remains to be seen if she was a full-on agent or just a sort of Russian adventurer in American politics who sought to profit alongside Washington swamp creatures.

You’re speaking to the commentor that injects Trump! Russia! Into unrelated threads regarding microeconomics, game theory academic papers, and restaurant blegs.

He’s been consistent in saying Trump is a Russian Manchurian Candidate for two years, to the level of drunk schizophrenic homeless man screaming at passengers on the 2 Train.

But remember, opposing Trump for normal reasons means you’re...”a rat stuck in Putin’s maze.”

I’ll be the first one to eat crow and admit I was wrong, if Trump turns out to have paid cash (or promised X) to Russia in return for hacking the DNC server.

Given what I know about surveillance of data that crosses borders, if that were true the Mueller report would have been issued literally years ago.

anon, Bear, whatever is so far removed from what actual data can be accessed he thinks Mueller is a week away from issuing a subpoena for an email to Russia.


Thank you, because aside from the ridiculous "paid cash" goalposts, you are admitting that I got there first.

Remember folks, that WikiLeaks was a Russian intelligence operation to aid Donald Trump is a done deal.

It only remains how much he and his cronies and his family were aware in real time.

I am curious which is the greater achievement, defeating Wikileaks or Trump. One insulted their pride, the other was a genuine threat. Turning Julian Assange into a fascist is ine of the great successes of the century so far.

So from Manchurian candidate to idiot that Russia helped in their typical “ruin the politics of X country” scheme.

Only you could try to make these equivalent. Your blatant dishonesty and bullshit is absurd.

Russia thought Clinton would win, (as did the world) and wanted to damage US politics as much as possible.

You see a conspiracy theory, I see idiots.

You’re correct if Trump is a Russian Manchurian candidate, answering to the bidding of the Kremlin. Which, you’re an idiot, so no.

I’m right if Trump is as low IQ as you, and was helped by a competitor state leveraging the corruption of one party as a method of damaging the credibility of the US government. They hoped for a damaged Clinton, they struck gold and won an actual retard.

Your Trumpista notions make more sense now. It’s the tard. Blood will out I suppose.

Why would you think that your apoplexy is an antidote to the news?

Putting crazy "Manchurian candidate" claims in my mouth actually does nothing to change the facts on the ground.

Maybe that's why I'm not upset, it will come out in the wash.

Sleep tight.

I’m sure the “genuine embarrassment” of someone who thinks falsifying thousands of affidavits is “perfectly legal” will prove very worrying.

What happens if the new NAFTA doesn't pass? Does the old NAFTA stay in force, or is it like hard Brexit, with no treaties between the three North-Americas countries besides the generic ones of the WTO?

The old NAFTA stays in place. It was passed by an act of Congress. It will take an act of Congress to change it.

"It will take an act of Congress to change it."


"Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties."

Silent on how a party [USA for instance] withdraws.

Carter withdrew from the 1954 Mutual Defense Treaty with the Republic of China and the Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision on "ripeness" grounds. Goldwater v. Carter, 444 U.S. 996 (1979)

It is debatable who can act for the US, president or Congress.

On the one hand the Republicans have attempted to steal elections in Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, while the President of the United States seeks to sabotage the decennial census for political purposes. BUT! On the other hand the Democrats tried to undermine an Alderman race in a district with a population of 64,000 people. So you really can see how both sides are equally guilty here.

Just because you write "p.s. if you think or write 'false equivalency'..." that doesn't make your argument any less inane.

And Dems stole a dozen House seats in California and elsewhere by continuing to find votes until the result changed.

Really? Then why are none of the losing candidates filing complaints, asking for recounts or showing their evidence to the world? Where are the statistical anomalies that would substantiate the claims?

Both of these Bobs are the problem in a nutshell. Tiny-brained partisanship.

Maybe, but maybe not:

This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections. Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

Then again... Maybe so

The advent of large sample surveys, such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), has opened the possibility of measuring very low frequency events, characteristics, and behaviors in the population. This paper documents how low-level measurement error for survey questions generally agreed to be highly reliable can lead to large prediction errors in large sample surveys, such as the CCES. The example for this analysis is Richman et al. (2014), which presents a biased estimate of the rate at which non-citizens voted in recent elections. The results, we show, are completely accounted for by very low frequency measurement error; further, the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.

Interesting, but "the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0." is concerning. Too many of them have been caught. Makes me wonder if the article was written specifically to prove this. (I'd also disbelieve percentages that approach 100. 97% seems to be a number often used when results are cherry picked)

The election process in my county is unnecessarily elaborate, and certainly far too lengthy and infantilizing, but efficiently-run for the most part. They count our ballots and announce the results on election night, an impossibility other places apparently. "Mail-in" ballots may not keep trickling in; domestically postmarked ones must be received by one business day after election day. I am fairly certain that boxes of paper ballots may not be collected by activists and dumped at the county, as I learned is allowed in CA - per recent election stories. (I don't doubt that this practice is coming, now that it's seen to be so effective.) Overall, my county's is a pretty impressive operation, and people here love to vote in great numbers, mostly for the "Yo Voté" stickers, as far as I can tell.

But that said, our election officials are not necessarily the brightest bulbs. I was at a pollworker training once, and the head bureaucrats had come in to monitor. The trainers were at pains to describe all the fifty ways to vote even if you couldn't provide identification, or even if you don't live here in our county, or aren't sure, or even if you can't get out of your car, or even if you can't read, or even if you want to vote in the runoff of one party after voting in the primary of another, which is not allowed but yet is, & etc. We understood that their great desire was that no one should leave a polling place unhappy, or feel "disenfranchised." The rules were many, but they would prefer us ultimately to just throw them out the window, to enforcing them at the risk of somebody making a scene. Okay, got it.

So we're going over some affidavit or other to permit voting by an amnesiac or whatever. The first box to check was "Are you an American citizen?" One of the confused elderly pollworker recruits (who often need things spelled out), raised a hand and asked, "What do we do if they say they're not an American citizen? Can they still vote?"

The trainer, otherwise very "up" on all the details, went blank for a moment. He recovered himself: "Yes, everyone can vote."

"I don't ... think you can vote if you are not a citizen ...?" I interposed, in one of those sanity-doubting moments.

He turned to his superior. She said that was a good question and she didn't know. She turned to another of the diversicrats, the VIP of the place, who seemed like he was there mainly for bonhomie and to thank everyone for coming.

He also was perplexed and said it was a good question and he would try to find out.

This happened.

Really? Because there's no reason you can think of why citizens of a wealthy export oriented district who pay state local and property taxes in the mid 5 and 6 digits might not want to support their Republican congressmen?

wait a minute you're saying the president is trying to do something for political purposes?! hang on what crazy world are we in here this isn't right people

"false equivalency" between what? Opposition to unsafe driving conditions and shamelessly depriving someone of their ability to participate in the political process? But they AREN'T equivalent. ;)

I'm with Cowen: get those driverless cars on the road, crashing into cars with driven by teenagers, distracted soccer moms, and bankers in their Ferraris, so we can get on with nonpartisan funding for a separate right of way for driverless cars. What's a few casualties for the future of transportation.

Everyone drink!

you fail the Intellectual Turing test

We trick you into thinking we're actually tenured AI systems?

I personally am a cup of hot tea connected to a limited improbability drive.

*** "Sorry people, but I will always be an independent..."


... what are the core principles of an "independent" ?

Do you vote ?

Extremely unlikely that you are actually "independent" of the political circus. Strike a pose.

Can't be any worse than the core principles of a partisan.

> p.s. if you think or write “false equivalency” in response to this post, you fail the Intellectual Turing test.

Lol. Then you fail game theory 101. Relative valuations are actually much MORE important than categorical "good or bad" judgments on individual outcomes.

So frustrating when both sides point fingers but forget to say, "This has to stop. Whoever is doing it is wrong whenever they do it. These practices don't always happen, they're changeable and it's worth the investment to improve our democracy."

Was that so hard?

Because mood affiliation. When you criticize an election someone won, they have to fight all criticisms of it.

Election security is important. Mismanaging an election as bad as Broward County did should result in jail time. It looks likely that someone on Mark Harris's election campaign should be in jail. We should make some attempt at auditing the people who show up to vote (which does not mean "no ID no vote" but there is a lot of room between that and "whatever just show up").

[1] This is not a legal standard.

Minor quibble: if TC is referring to the thing dreamed up by Bryan Caplan, it is the IDEOLOGICAL Turing Test, not the INTELLECTUAL TT. IF that is what TC meant.

I don't think he actually means anything by it. It was the rhetorical equivalent of a squid releasing a cloud of ink to cover their escape.

"Sorry people, but I will always be an independent"

Says the guy who can't wait to vote for Paul Ryan in 2024 as a Fiscal Conservative.

Joking aside, I think there is more than a little false equivalency going on. The scope of the examples listed compared with the Republican "equivalents" are obviously an act of mental gymnastics that lets you comfortably not take a side while still appearing thoughtful. Its a bit pathetic.

I understand economists in general are trained to answer "it depends" or otherwise hedge their own bets (and for good reason if economics is going to continue the trend of resembling the hard sciences), but at some point you have to acknowledge there's been some serious moving of goalposts and the blame should not be evenly distributed.

"it's not just North Carolina" No kidding. Its rampant across this banana republic.

It becomes worse in California, in fact I think some ethnic races are allowed double or triple voting. If you a good at it, you can vote in Mexico, China, and the USA twice; perfectly legal I think.

I don't see much value in being an independent. Parties are diverse coalitions that help organize political choices and that help fulfill broad policy goals. You pick the party that's closest to on the policy dimensions that matter most and then you support that party in the hopes that, when it's in power, it implements (or protects) the things that you care about. You will disagree with many of the party's policies and members, but less so than you would if you were to join an alternative party. And the benefit of supporting the party is that it increases the likelihood of its electoral and legislative success.

People call themselves independents to show they are above partisan politics. It's easy (and popular) to say both sides suck. But it's a cop out. Most independents, the research shows, vote so predictably for one party or the other that they behave the same as registered party members. There are a few true swing voters, but they don't follow politics closely enough to have fixed ideological preferences. I don;t think Tyler fits in that camp.

But is Tyler is one of those 'independents' that always votes Dem or Rep? I doubt it.

I suspect that Cowen has voted for both centrist Republicans and Democrats in the past.

However, I don't suspect in the least that Prof. Cowen can be counted on to vote for the candidate most likely to ensure that we keep taking those steps to a much better world - the one that the rich get richer without any fear of the political process deciding that the rich getting richer is not the highest goal of society.

The astute reader will notice that in this incredibly long run-on sentence with no commas except after the passive-aggressive opening word, our beliebter deutscher Troll has vomited a sentence that means the opposite of the repetitive snarky point he usually makes. If it was sarcasm, it was far too verbose to be effective. Just a D- effort all around.

It used to be that people would evolve from one party to another over the course of their life. "Voting patterns" vary in the same way

A survey that looks at a 4 or 8 year span may not capture that. It may see a mode of thinking or voting as partisanship, and miss changes before or after.

Show me somebody who votes for the same party over 20 or 30 years and then I will say you are found a true partisan.

Identities change. But it’s mostly stable now.

Most obvious example (are there others?) would be unmarried white women to married with kids white women. That’s a dramatic split.

As the parties move closer to strict ethnic, gender, whatever identities, and shared cultural capital falls to zero, I would anticipate in the medium term for party preferences to solidify based on said identities. Long term who knows.

Obviously the doomsday scenario is for parties and racial/insert X groups to align completely. That’s a local maximum where everyone loses and immense dysfunction reigns supreme, and it’s hard to move to a Pareto improvement equilibrium.

I think it tends to look stable in the short-term, but it shouldn't surprise us if millennials invent their own sort of conservatism 20 years from now.

Or that if the youth of that age invent their own sort of liberalism.

In the short term, white women who get married and have kids shift to Republican.

My point wasn’t that it looks stable in the short term. It’s that it solidifies based on identity.

But as usual you ignore the content of the comment. Props to not shouting Russia though.

They become more conservative, but they won't be loyal Republicans until Mr. Trump and the memory of Mr. Trump go away. The Republican Party has cooked its goose with educated urban/suburban white women.

The Republican Party has cooked its goose with educated urban/suburban white women.

And what do they advocate, as a collective, which would interest anyone else?

Classic centrism; fiscally conservative, socially liberal, competent government. My wife's platform. She voted Democratic this time, not her usual habit. I'm just a little to the right of her. By the way, they're not a collective. I'm describing a median voter, with much variation on both sides.

Choose parties based on policy preferences?

Swing and a miss. I can’t even fathom how someone can say that with a straight face after the last 3 years.

Choose a party based on status competition between identity groups? That’s at least closer.

Obamacare vs corporate tax cuts. The parties have different policy priorities and, when in power, they act upon them.

Does independent and turing test mean intellectually dishonest conservative? Tyler consistently sides with conservatives and hides behind the facade of independence. It is piffle, the shallowest of lies gobbled up by equally dishonest conservatives. Just like Tyler goes to bad for white supremecists and works to rehabilitate eugenics and tries to delete my posts stating the obvious.

Just be honest Tyler. Just admit you are a partisan conservative.

There you have it, folks. Tyler Cowen, white supremacist.

The best part is the hard conservatives reflexively give the same banally idiotic comments as the hard left, but in a fun house mirror reflection.

Is Tyler an independent?

Well both sides of the IdiotenKampf de jure sure don’t count him has one of their own.

That’s enough to be considered an independent.

Cheers to the host.

+2 cheers to the host and hmmm

Being an "independent" is just a "Straussian" posture. Please.

our model suggests being an independent
might also be an evolutionary adaptation to
watching the trump1 pelosi2 schumar3 shitshow yesterday
and then watching cable news interpret it as
as anything other than a stupid shitshow
2 trinity college
3 harvard


Honestly, as a longtime follower, this is one of the most disappointing things I've read from you.

To go through the points:

My understanding: you can't support democrats because he doesn't agree politically with their positions. They aren't supporting legislation to fast-track self driving cars (during the lame duck session), and the don't support the new NAFTA.

I don't know enough about the self-driving car legislation, but blaming democrats about legislation you support (and calling it a compromise), when Republicans currently control all branches of government hardly seems like a moderate, independent position.

The NAFTA point is more egregious, a quick googling, the only argument you seem to make for the new nafta is that rebranding may be the biggest value to an "underwhelming" deal. So I'm not sure why not supporting this legislation is the sticking point that defines your ideological position – it seems like at most you would be indifferent about the democrat's position, but you're using it as an argument not to support them. Does this pass the Ideological Turing Test?

Comparing Chicago Alderman election fraud, to congressional election fraud and saying "I can't support either side". OK, at an abstract level, you're correct – fraud is always bad, people commit fraud lots of places. But you're also using some form of whataboutism to ignore problems, and you're ignoring some systemic problems on the Republican side. Primarily, that no one in conservative media (Marginal Revolution, sadly included) seems to be willing to address that something bad is happening in North Carolina.

For example, you've now dedicated more real estate to this fraud, than to anything in North Carolina. In fact, the last North Carolina post on Marginal Revolution was in 2016, *supporting* the North Carolinian legislation to reduce the power of incoming Democrats, after the vote.

Honest question: if Democratic state governments legislated to vest more power in themselves during a lame duck session, would you have:
a) posted vigorously defending their right to do so (but disagreeing with their politics)
b) attacked them for abusing timetables in our election rules to circumvent democratic norms
c) just said nothing.

I know it's unfair to hypothetically answer on your behalf, but based on the data I have (North Carolina, Wyoming, Michigan), it looks like the answer would have almost certainly been C.

ps – if you finish your post immediately discounting arguments in advance, it reeks of small-mindedness, especially with such a snide and dismissive tone.

Most sensible, fair minded thing I've read on this blog in some time. And if TC is being "Straussian" as I see some suggesting, well, your post just demonstrates how immature being "Straussian" is.

Why is this news to you? Tyler has long championed social conservativsm. From giving a platform to Steve Sailer to promoting the virtues of LDS he had long shown this true colors while keeping the facade of "independence". What rubbish. Do you think he writes pro-Trump articles to be cheeky or because deep down he really is one of the MAGA boys?

'because deep down he really is one of the MAGA boys'

MAGA is just the latest slogan, along the lines of the Tea Party. What Prof. Cowen has been for decades is merely a tool being wielded by others.

Unfortunately, I realize that posting links or names will result in such information only being read by a select few. Self-censorship is the key to minimal deletions in this comment section, but it is a smallish price to pay in what is only a PR exercise anyways.

What Prof. Cowen has been for decades is merely a tool being wielded by others.

You were fired for cause. Get over it.

Why is this news to you? Tyler has long championed social conservativsm. From giving a platform to Steve Sailer

Steve Sailer is no social conservative and he's never had a position at Mercatus nor does he have posting privileges at Marginal Revolution. Or is it your contention that he has a 'platform' because Cowan and Tabarrok haven't banned him? (They went to the trouble of banning 'E Harding' for some reason).

I'll assume this is mere trolling. However since an honest reader may be reading this Tyler has linked to Steve's website and quoted him directly. So this isn't directed at you, obvious troll but to others more honest.

As regular readers of this blog know, many if not most of Cowen's blog posts are Straussian. Maybe this post is Straussian.

You might've missed my gist. Not this post, or any post; the whole "independent" posture is Straussian, stealthy. And how you gonna be a democrat when you'd prefer "democracy in chains" to prioritize property rights uber alles. That's literally the job anyway. Come on, we're not supposed to know that?

Another obtuse, wooly post by Cowen.

What's the point?

Aren't you a bot if blame everything on Russia?

Let's leave Russia out of this.

No need to apologize! (As Bryan Caplan has noted, the Ds and Rs are both absurd churches!)

“So, what about the 2,609 people who didn’t sign for David but who filed revocations? That’s fraud. That’s perjury. That’s felony.”

The West’s dirty little secret is that the rule of law works well only when tempered with a high degree of discretion.

A salesman sold my grandmother a $6,000 chair.

MR shifts from contrarian to cantankerous curmudgeon during the holidays. Is it the authors who have more time or do they anticipate that readers have more time to exercise their demons? Maybe both?

I read similar articles every day and think "this is why I usually vote Republican."

I'm not sure what the Democratic party is supposed to be, but they are good at passing bad policy.

If you are stuck in a bubble you will constantly read stories about how evil the other side is. You often don't find out about your own sides dirty tricks until you read the opposition media.

The strangest thing about living in that section of Chicago was regularly seeing packs of middle-aged, serious-looking men wearing identical union shirts walking around (at a fast pace) like street toughs. It really unnerved me to see the "us vs. them" union-entitlement mentality on their faces.

it does make this large voting bloc wonder what sorta
inducements/sticks were applied to the affidavit signers in
order to get that many affidavits signed sealed and delivered
in that short a time period.
u.s. senator hirono sez "shut up men"
well that's not what the law sez senator and
georgetown1 law school graduate hirono
1.where for 60 grand a year you can apparently graduate without understanding the constitution and due process

Is there a such thing as a "Reverse True Scotsman Fallacy" for someone who keeps arguing they're not a Republican no matter how much evidence is presented that they are?

You will always be an independent? There is no chance at all that you could find yourself in agreement with a political party? Sounds like you're stubbornly attached to your independent identity.

Chicago makes Tammany Hall look like Boy Scouts.

Comments for this post are closed