Slashdot Mirror

The fact is as you stated: this was one of "the longest recoveries"; that logically makes it one of the slowest.

I think you misunderstand what a recovery is. From the wiki: An economic recovery is the phase of the business cycle following a recession, during which an economy regains and exceeds peak employment and output levels achieved prior to downturn.

The longest economic recovery in recorded U.S. history was in the 1990's, which was simultaneously the best economic growth since the 60's. A long recovery is a GOOD thing.

What Keynesians give you is a responsible adult model of economic behavior - pay off your debts when things are good, so you've got some room to borrow when things are bad.

Pay off debts? Are you delusional? When has the US government ever paid off debt?

Oh, I don't know, through most of its history until the advent of delusional Reaganomics?

Austrians suck at math, modeling, and basically all the modern tools of science, because fundamentally, they don't believe in them.

Correct.

Read the link I posted earlier. Austrians argue that no experiment or empirical evidence could falsify their theory. In this context, that's the same as saying it's a bunch of made-up nonsense that has no bearing on reality. It's pseudointellectual tripe masquerading as economics, and the nonexistent predictive power of the Austrian theory makes that clear. Keynesians actually use math, modeling, and some semblance of scientific rigor in their studies, instead of rejecting empiricism on principle. There's no comparison between the two.

Stand down, there. You weren't conned into funding Bernie. Bernie was the better candidate in almost every way. We should vote for the better man. We should fund the better man.

There's fake news and there's problematic news. The bots will push both if they think either is useful, but that doesn't make problematic news fake news. The Democratic party really did shoot itself in the ass by intentionally hamstringing Bernie. If they hadn't for example delayed the debates (which are massively helpful for putting candidates on the map such that you start to look into what he/she candidate offers) Bernie's numbers would have been enough to win. If you look at his progress as a graph you can see he passes Clinton if the race goes on longer or starts earlier -- and the race really only gets started after the first debate, so delaying the debate made Clinton, who had more brand recognition at the outset, inevitable. And there's no way Trump could have beaten Bernie -- He was shown in multiple polls to be significantly further ahead of Trump than Clinton. (The polls had a systematic anti-Trump bias, but in a Trump vs. Bernie vs Clinton poll that would even out and so doesn't matter for these polls.) We have the Democratic party to thank for Trump.

So long as you didn't vote for Trump or stay home, you did the right thing.

As for your money needing to go to Hillary, it wasn't lack of money which kept her from winning. She outspent Trump almost 2 to 1. In large part it was HOW she was spending it. TV advertising costs a fortune, doesn't do much to move people, and is the primary expenditure for most campaigns (second to payroll for Clinton). It gets the most spending because the campaign folks who place the ads get a percentage back from the TV stations. It's TV spending that makes campaign folks rich. For numbers, look at these URLs: http://metrocosm.com/where-doe... and https://www.bloomberg.com/poli... In retrospect, it's clear she needed more legal staff to contest voter suppression and more ground staff to get people to the polls.

How many times do we have to keep reminding people that the world is bigger than just the U.S.

Nevermind that places like where I live today are seeing stronger and stronger wind storms. I'm in Arizona, a place known for a lack of natural disasters. In the past 10 years we've had mass hail events in the winter and storms strong enough to rip the roof off my house. I wasn't alone either.

Contrast that with Vermont where I grew up, there were times this summer where Vermont was hotter than Arizona. The weather is going to continue to become less and less predictable. It doesn't help that we've allowed satellites to go into disrepair either. Arizona used to be famous for 300+ days of sun a year, that is no longer the case and I haven't even been here 20 years yet.

In that sense, so is Oregon (Portland, Salem, Bend), California (SanFran Metro, LA Metro, San Diego Metro), Washington (SeaTac and maybe one other metro area), and likely lots of other states just like it. :)

Not quite, but certainly the perception of California, Washington, and Oregon as total Commie-Pinko Hippie territory is wrong. Reagan was elected governor of California. Reagan. The idea that the state is a far leftist fring? A lie.

But here's a shocker, so is the perception of the country as a Sea of Red. It's a lie. A damnable one.

Here's a 3d map of the vote by county. Pretty interesting. http://metrocosm.com/election-...

And anyone who isn't an idiot who looks at that map, sees the real story. The country is mostly flat, because that's the lack of margin, except in places where there's a LOT of people. Like huge amounts.

The "popular" vote is due to just a few counties, which happen to also be safe places for illegals, and highly alleged to be corrupt.

Because nobody ever accused any rural counties of being corrupt electoral frauds. Oh wait, wait, they done that. Herp. Whatcha gonna do?

We don't know how much voter fraud happened in those places, but it is likely non-zero.

You don't know, but you want to believe it's somehow meaningful levels! And only against your canddiate!

Being smart, Trump knew that these were no-win states, so he didn't waste any time or money campaigning there. He was going after the win rather than the popular vote. Considering Trumps relatively low campaign costs, he went about it wisely.

He got lucky. He got less votes in Wisconsin than Kerry in 2004, he underperformed in Texas, he crashed in California.

I hope he handles his presidential decisions this well.

So far, he's failed, he's even claimed a landslide. That's a lie.

Here's a 3d map of the vote by county. Pretty interesting. http://metrocosm.com/election-...

The "popular" vote is due to just a few counties, which happen to also be safe places for illegals, and highly alleged to be corrupt. We don't know how much voter fraud happened in those places, but it is likely non-zero.

Being smart, Trump knew that these were no-win states, so he didn't waste any time or money campaigning there. He was going after the win rather than the popular vote. Considering Trumps relatively low campaign costs, he went about it wisely. I hope he handles his presidential decisions this well.

I didn't vote for either Trump or Hillary --- but if you look at what actually happened, you don't need conspiracy theories to explain it.

But that's the thing, too many people on the Trump side are explaining it as...something it is not. That's what has come up here.

Hillary won the east and west coasts, very much as you might have expected. She won them big and that's the main reason for her overall popular vote win.

She lost in conservative states where you would expect that.

The pollsters and pundits misread the situation on the ground in states like Michigan, which they thought Hillary would win, but instead went over to Trump by fairly narrow margins.

Ah, you should look at some maps..

Pretty
pictures.
ok

This appears to be more to do with the economy, jobs, etc., than leaked emails and the like.

Well, it's not because they love Donald Trump. He's now not unfavorable by 2/3 of the country! That's soaring...to new lows.

Of course, all of this can be debated endlessly, but what is there about the election that really leads to a credible theory of manipulation, fraud, and hacking? The fact that Hillary lost is not exactly evidence.

You may or may not be disappointed with the outcome. You may or may not be happy that Trump will be president. But there certainly seems to be a fairly simple and fairly logical explanation for the outcome. That seems a lot stronger than conspiracy theories.

Bzzt, error, error. You're in the wrong section of the thread. This is the section of the thread where we're talking about how Trump's win is not a landslide, is not clearly showing how the American people are speaking, and ultimately how Trump's a lying braggart.

I mean, if you want to discuss something, we could ask ourselves why Wisconsin has the lowest turnout since 2000. Why Michigan had so many problems. Why Pennsylvania election officials lied to potential voters. We could do that. But we won't.