Slashdot Mirror


Canada Has Pulled Off a Brain Heist (axios.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Seoul-born Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, a professor at Brown University known for her work on fake news, is moving to Canada. So is Alan Aspuru-Guzik, a Harvard chemistry professor working on quantum computing and artificial intelligence. They are among 24 top academic minds around the world wooed to Canada by an aggressive recruitment effort offering ultra-attractive sinecures, seven-year funding arrangements -- and, Chun and Aspuru-Guzik said in separate interviews with Axios, a different political environment from the U.S. The "Canada 150 Research Chairs Program" is spending $117 million on seven-year grants of either $350,000 a year or $1 million a year. It's part of a campaign by numerous countries to attract scholars unhappy with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and other political trends, sweetened with unusually generous research conditions.

351 comments

  1. Are we talking by maroberts · · Score: 1

    iZombie or The Walking Dead brain heist?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Are we talking by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      iZombie or The Walking Dead brain heist?

      Canada said:

      Oh, take off, eh!"

      . . . and folks packed their bags wherever they were, and took the next flight to Canada!

      Unfortunately, the Brexit campaign was abused by xenophobic folks in the UK to stoke up "foreigners are evil!" elements there. And it worked. Some foreign IT folks that I work with in the UK have told me that they feel like they have hunting targets pinned on their clothes when they go out shopping.

      Xenophobia is the new wave in Europe, but the French nipped the racist "National Front" in the bud with the election of Macron. In Germany, the racist AfD got into parliament, but their political influence has been dampened.

      In the UK . . . well, a majority voted for Brexit . . . how many did so on anti-foreigner sentiments . . . nobody will talk about.

      But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    2. Re: Are we talking by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      Amusingly, one of the arguments given for voting leave (and the reason that a lot of Indian and Pakistani immigrants voted) was the preferential treatment of Europeans over Asians by the UK immigration system. It's amusing how even the racism in the leave campaign wasn't self consistent, let alone their economic arguments.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:Are we talking by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

      Conveniently, as a result of these folks moving to Canada, the average intelligence of the United States and Canada both went up!

      (Come on, someone had to say it...)

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    4. Re:Are we talking by trickyb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Xenophobia is the new wave in Europe, but the French nipped the racist "National Front" in the bud with the election of Macron.

      #fakenews

      The far-right "Front National" reached the second round of the presidential elections - only the second time ever that they've managed this - and recorded their best ever score - 33.90%.

      Seriously, guys, wake up. I live in France. I was not born here. My wife was not born here. The rise of the Front National is a real concern for us. Their popularity is slowly but relentlessly on the rise. Yet I constantly read this rubbish "Woop-woop, high fives, we beat the fascists!". Erm, no, buddy. Pretending that the problem has been solved, does not actually solve it.

    5. Re:Are we talking by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny

      But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?

      The UK is a parliamentary democracy. If the UK population voted for an absolutely racist/xenophobic government at a General Election, that would be completely different from a marginal majority in a stupid fucking Referendum that no one took seriously until it was too late.

      Voting in such a government would probably start an actual Civil War, but that is another issue.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    6. Re:Are we talking by Daralantan · · Score: 2

      In the UK . . . well, a majority voted for Brexit . . . how many did so on anti-foreigner sentiments . . . nobody will talk about.

      Randomly this reminds me that apparently a large number of people in the UK claimed they voted for it as a joke, thinking it wouldn't go through. ....Never vote as a joke.

    7. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Conveniently, as a result of these folks moving to Canada, the average intelligence of the United States and Canada both went up!'

      Unfortunately they didn't get the 'stable genius'.

    8. Re: Are we talking by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Amusingly, one of the arguments given for voting leave (and the reason that a lot of Indian and Pakistani immigrants voted) was the preferential treatment of Europeans over Asians by the UK immigration system. It's amusing how even the racism in the leave campaign wasn't self consistent, let alone their economic arguments.

      There were many reasons why individuals would choose to leave EU, and many for wanting to stay too. Many of the reasons did not follow party lines at all.
      It's easy for Americans who are used to polarization to think of it as right versus left and party lines, but that is seldom the case in European politics. Things are far more nuanced, and especially in referendums. A left-leaning English man might have voted for leaving because he felt he paid too much to the EU compared to what England got back, while a right-leaning Scot might think that EU subsidies and incentives for his region were needed for his business, while another Scot might be fed up of London controlling their oil income. It's all varied, and I would guess that only a minority of the votes had anything to do with xenophobia.

      Britain is used to high immigration, and people around the world who have Commonwealth passports and rights already. Integration is much better in the UK than in the US, although certainly not perfect. The parts that have immigration fears are quite often left-leaning, not almost all right-leaning like in the US. Sure, you'll find skinhead right-wing supremacists, but they are hardly numerous enough to influence a referendum. Religion plays a much smaller part, and if anything, the Christians are more welcoming, not less like in the US. It's a very different playing field.

    9. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why so many are confounding democracy with tyranny of the majority?

      >But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?

      This is not democracy. This is a failure of the majority voting system. Most of failures of the majority voting system can be traced back to an abandon of rationality or centralization excess (some matters do not concern the majority).

    10. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... if you are a true believer in democracy you should feel all warm and fuzzy when two wolves and a sheep vote what's for dinner... right?

    11. Re:Are we talking by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can confirm. The amount of xenophobic/racist abuse as increased since Brexit. I got screamed at in the street for talking Japanese on the phone a few months back. Some people have been emboldened by what they see as endorsement of their xenophobia, regardless of what proportion of leave voters actually agree with them. I know a lot just fell for the Euro myths and £350m/week for the NHS lies.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re:Are we talking by mjwx · · Score: 1

      iZombie or The Walking Dead brain heist?

      Canada said:

      Oh, take off, eh!"

      . . . and folks packed their bags wherever they were, and took the next flight to Canada!

      Unfortunately, the Brexit campaign was abused by xenophobic folks in the UK to stoke up "foreigners are evil!" elements there. And it worked. Some foreign IT folks that I work with in the UK have told me that they feel like they have hunting targets pinned on their clothes when they go out shopping.

      Xenophobia is the new wave in Europe, but the French nipped the racist "National Front" in the bud with the election of Macron. In Germany, the racist AfD got into parliament, but their political influence has been dampened.

      In the UK . . . well, a majority voted for Brexit . . . how many did so on anti-foreigner sentiments . . . nobody will talk about.

      But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?

      AfD in German was a loose alliance of far right parties that banded together for the election when it looked like the far right had a chance. They didn't get a majority and fractured, their ostensible leader, Frauke Petry resigned on day 1, they've completely descended into petty bickering. If an election was held again, I think Merkel would get a majority again and AFD would be lucky to get a few seats.

      And you're completely right about Brexit. It was all orchestrated on the irrational fear of Johnathan Foreigner and now all but the hardened racists have seen it for the utter cock up it was always destined to be.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    13. Re:Are we talking by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1, Troll

      Anybody stupid enough to move because of a legal vote- well, that's somebody who isn't likely going to be doing any original research anyway, just derived politically correct bullshit like climate science, string theory, and Women's Studies.

      Stuff that the Trump Great America is not interested in funding because there is no profit in it.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    14. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conveniently, as a result of these folks moving to Canada, the average intelligence of the United States and Canada both went up!

      Because obviously, your average Kardashian fan is more intelligent than "top academic minds".

    15. Re:Are we talking by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, Informative

      #fakenews

      The far-right "Front National" reached the second round of the presidential elections - only the second time ever that they've managed this - and recorded their best ever score - 33.90%.

      Not arguing that FN isn't an issue, but you do realise that the nature of the French presidential run-off system has the potential to create these sorts of overdramatic situations? A more representative level of support for them would be from the first round, where they got 21.3% vs Macron's 24%. If they had got just 1.3% less, or about 10% of Fillon's supports had backed Melenchon instead, then there would have been no 'big drama' in the second runoff.

      Also, while Macron gained significant votes from other candidates in the second round, FN did not (when you account for those who voted in the first round but not the second and the 11.5% who nulled their ballots), so they remain a narrow but fervent group on the outside of mainstream French politics. Unless they can fix that, there is (and this was clear during the election) zero chance they can take over the presidency.

      It is scary that 1/5 French voters support them, and France needs to deal with this, but there is not about to be a French Brexit/Trump. That part of it was the sensationalist media trying to drum up a story out of nothing.

    16. Re: Are we talking by reanjr · · Score: 2

      You should simply look them in the face, then speak pointedly in Japanese, with laughter intermingled. That type of shit drives racists crazy.

    17. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      every sheep is a cabbage's wolf.

    18. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My only problem with your post is the "#fakenews" part. Come on, man. Just because someone is wrong doesn't mean that they're "fake news." The whole reason that the American right is trying to use that phrase in the sense you just used it is to water it down so we lose sight of the actual fake news stories that are flooding the internet and confusing the hell out of technologically illiterate baby boomers. By making it a catch-all phrase for anyone who says something that is wrong or biased, we fail to distinguish between merely being wrong and the intentional spread of misinformation.

    19. Re: Are we talking by muffen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anybody stupid enough to move because of a legal vote- well, that's somebody who isn't likely going to be doing any original research anyway, just derived politically correct bullshit like climate science, string theory, and Women's Studies.

      Yea, if you live in a country where a legal vote has been held, you stay there! I mean, it's not like anyone has ever been moved to a ghetto, thrown out of the country, died, or has had any other horrible thing happen to them as a result of a legal vote... Legal votes are safe!

    20. Re:Are we talking by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      Well, Ontario has Doug Ford

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    21. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cool anecdote Amimojo. It firmly proves that racists have been emboldened.

    22. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh. So now Brexit is a xenophobic thing.

      Okay.

      Because having economic migrants (not refugees) thrust upon you by the EU is just the way to go.

      The UK is already moving towards totalitarianism and state-enforced blasphemy laws.

      But the problem is people who object to a class (not a race) of people who come to this country SOLELY for the economic incentives, with NO intention of following existing laws or adapting themselves to the local culture.

      Where grooming gangs, pedophiles and rampant lawlessness go unchecked because everyone is afraid of being labeled "racist".

      Because national sovereignty is a Bad Thing in the globalist view.

      But NOOOOO!

      It's racists and xenophobes!

      Oh fuck off!

    23. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the population projection stats for white people... Survival of white and western people is at risk in as little as 20(Canada, 2036 50% mark) to 55 years... By that, the demographics will make them a minority in most countries they built/their origins..

      We then could(likely) see the western laws/system/wealth be democratically stripped away.

      IMO Everyone deserves a homeland and whites are the only ones giving up theirs(so the projections suggest) semi-voluntarily; this could lead to a bloody terrible backlash, it would be nice if it was corrected before that becomes necessary.

    24. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My ultra liberal brother voted for Trump as a joke in the primary, thinking he was fucking over the republican nomination.

      Living in the best time line.

    25. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's true. I'm one quarter racist (grandmother on my father's side), and I'm feeling slightly emboldened by Brexit.

    26. Re:Are we talking by kilfarsnar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anybody stupid enough to move because of a legal vote- well, that's somebody who isn't likely going to be doing any original research anyway, just derived politically correct bullshit like climate science, string theory, and Women's Studies.

      Stuff that the Trump Great America is not interested in funding because there is no profit in it.

      The man wen bankrupt running a casino. You know, the place where the odds are always stacked in favor of the house.

      Is profit really all we should be interested in? Is breathing clean air and drinking clean water profitable? Is understanding our world and environment profitable? Is understanding the building blocks and mechanisms that underpin our physical reality profitable?

      Theses things, among many others, have value that cannot be expressed monetarily. You might consider how many things enable and enrich your life that do not make money for anybody. Or not!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    27. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody stupid enough to move because of a legal vote- well, that's somebody who isn't likely going to be doing any original research anyway, just derived politically correct bullshit like climate science, string theory, and Women's Studies.

      Legal vote? I thought millions of illegal aliens voted illegally! Or are we admitting that that was bullshit now?

    28. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist trash, Canada isn't a a defacto home land for white people. You will always be on the losing side of reason, nevermind maturity and humanity.

    29. Re: Are we talking by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Pray tell, what kind of bottom-of-the-barrel scum are you hanging out with where that's even an issue??

    30. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      What I think is funny is that you post how nuanced the Brexit vote was compared to American politics. You assume that the US is just simply left v right. As an American, I do wonder frequently if the media and people on the coasts tend to think that way myself. But though as a conservative, I did not vote for Trump, I know a lot of people who did. Most of them did not like him overall and would have preferred a stronger candidate. They each had their own reasons voting for him, and though some were "because he's not Clinton", that was a very small number of them. People in the midwest have been ruined by globalization, their jobs long ago sent to China, and he was saying he'd bring them back. Now you may say they're idiots and Trump never will, but when it comes vote time who do you vote for when you're desperate. The guy who says he's going to bring the jobs back or the lady who is explaining why your job being sent to China is good for you?

    31. Re: Are we talking by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you know about 1/2 of the White population has a below average IQ too?

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    32. Re: Are we talking by hazardPPP · · Score: 2

      Integration is much better in the UK than in the US, although certainly not perfect. The parts that have immigration fears are quite often left-leaning, not almost all right-leaning like in the US.

      Do you seriously believe this?

      The UK, which started dealing with mass migration about 50-60 years ago, is better at integration than the US, a mass-immigrant society from its very beginnings?

      Most of what I've read, seen, heard from people etc. suggests the UK is not very good at integrating immigrants at all. Granted, it was much more open to immigration than other European countries and much more welcoming to immigrants initially, but due do that it assumed things would take care of themselves...which resulted in rather poor integration of immigrants, especially some groups (like the South Asians that ended up grouping into ghettos in the cities).

      All the traditionally immigrant-based societies that sprung out of the British Empire (Canada, the US, Australia, etc.) are better at integrating immigrants than the UK. Since if they didn't do that well, they wouldn't exist.

    33. Re: Are we talking by Type44Q · · Score: 2

      though some were "because he's not Clinton", that was a very small number of them

      Isn't "small" a rather strange way of saying "most?"

    34. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    35. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    36. Re:Are we talking by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, this post is amazing! The historical parallels are beautiful! Bravo, mod parent Interesting!

      Now it's PC/SJW science instead of Jewish Science, and this time it's climate science, string theory and women's studies instead of Einstein's theories of relativity, Heisenberg's theories of quantum mechanics, and Freud's organized psychoanalysis. And now likewise, those scientists are taking refuge in other countries.

      This is amazing, it's almost like being able to use a time machine to visit Germany in the '30s.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    37. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot nobility/royalty. They should be the first to go.

    38. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, actual democracy is tyranny of the majority. What you want, with elected leaders (a senate, parliament, etc) who make decisions on behalf of the people is an oligarchy. Democracy works by direct referenda, and any magistrates are created by sortition. Election is a manner of choosing oligarchs, and all representative government is oligarchic.

    39. Re: Are we talking by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Many European countries have been very open to immigration, especially from their former colonies, and in the case of Germany, Turkey.

    40. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you really equating Freudâ(TM)s counter-scientific (unfalsifiable) doctrines of the unconscious and repressed memory, not to mention his metaphysical application of eros and thanatos drives beyond the human psyche, to Einsteinâ(TM)s physics? Freud peddled exactly the sort of anti-scientific quackery and sophistry that should be driven out of academia as blatantly regressive and pernicious to the search for knowledge.

    41. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes. If you dont want your country to be ruled from Germany youre a xenophobe. Sure thing.

      Youre a moron.

    42. Re: Are we talking by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      The UK used to, until the 90s, have blasphemy laws, although they were not enforced. I don't see any move towards new blasphemy laws.

    43. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16% is = 86 intelligence. Thatâ(TM)s alarming.
      But now you understand all the protesters.

    44. Re: Are we talking by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Well, to give him credit, I did equate string theory with women's studies....so....

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    45. Re: Are we talking by liquid_schwartz · · Score: 0

      My ultra liberal brother voted for Trump as a joke in the primary, thinking he was fucking over the republican nomination.

      Living in the best time line.

      It's OK, the media did the same thing for the same reason. Glad it back fired on them both.

    46. Re:Are we talking by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      Those millions of illegal aliens voted legally, thanks to California being a sanctuary state. Do try to keep up with the insanity of how state law now overrides federal law.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    47. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys are all honestly so stupid for thinking any politician believes the things they say, Clinton Trump or other.

      You fucking deserve everything you've voted for, honestly.

    48. Re: Are we talking by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      Though if we keep the same order- climate science=Relativity, string theory=quantum mechanics, and women's studies=Freudian psychology, so yes, right smack dab on.

      I was trying for the Theft, Murder, and Jaywalking trope originally.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    49. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I think is funny is that you post how nuanced the Brexit vote was compared to American politics. You assume that the US is just simply left v right.

      I've been called a NAZI supporter for simply suggesting they have a right to free speech. Repeatedly. We are only 7 years out of the Occupy movement and yet now that's a nazi thing. A good chunk of very vocal people assume that everyone and every issue simply falls one side of the aisle or the other. In america, if there's nuance, you're "third party" and therefore such a minority that you might as well be ignored.

    50. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you left. Youâ(TM)re kinda dumb. You are right at home in France. The âFront Rightâ(TM), as only you call it as no one in the USA has heard that. Idiot. Far right is better or right.

      When you are constantly being called a racist or bigot or other slanderous terms, day in and day out, just for being white, guess what. You create a group that binds together for survival. Before this crap started (thanks ombama), NOONE was on national tv or news site calling people by their race first. It used to be taboo and racist. But now, everyone is identified by their race (ethnicity;we all are the human race), first and character second. But guess what again. The United States is primarily from European decent. And guess what. You keep callling us out as racist, you make us bind together. Before, we donâ(TM)t even care about sticking together. We have other shit to do. But now, everyday it becomes more and more obvious that the guests we have let come here, or our ancestors brought here, hate us. And work daily to undermine us and destroy us.

      So guess what. It isnâ(TM)t going to happen. The current two generations of children growing up and being called racist or privileged and they havenâ(TM)t even done anything wrong are growing up and itâ(TM)s in their tranatized mind to only trust white people.

      So this identity politics has resulting in the exact opposite. Should have left it alone instead of whining and blaming from ignorance and straight up laziness and whoring and children out of wedlock. Idiots. Youâ(TM)ve trained us to quarantine you, watch you, and never trust you.

      Unless, and this is what separates Europeans and Asians from the rest of the lazy lazy world, you are the exception. Then we welcome you. Fairly. Just like we did to all (our mistake) just 12 years ago. Youâ(TM)ve woken a dragon. And for that, I thank you.

    51. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up the word: oxymoron.

      You stupid piece of shit.

    52. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you seriously believe this?

      Having lived in both England and the US, I do agree.

    53. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s an obvious lie.

      Guess what. People lie. And most of all lie on the internet. He is a troll. He got a response by a useful idiot. And you are questioning it because it doesnâ(TM)t make sense

      My friend. Itâ(TM)s a lie. It never happened. And thatâ(TM)s why itâ(TM)s anonymous.

    54. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you are just tired of being called a racist for being white. The most simple explanation is often the correct one.

    55. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. You are so right. Itâ(TM)s when they start taking our rights away - then we should be worried.

      Because as you stated, that stuff can happen not from a legal vote, but from illegal regulation or laws in opposition to our constitution that protects us - is executed.

      You are so right. Thank you.

    56. Re: Are we talking by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      "I would guess that only a minority of the votes had anything to do with xenophobia"

      But it's just so much more satisfying to accuse others of racism/xenophobia for decisions they make! You get to feel all smug and morally superior and stuff! Not to mention that you yourself are now immune from others calling you a racist/xenophobe!

    57. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It was a concern. Itâ(TM)s a reality for the next election. But, the only states that allow that âbullshitâ(TM) are already lost to the Democrats. So, it only counts in the swing states.

      Youâ(TM)re joke is funny. But, you must realize itâ(TM)s a game of votes. And after the election they wanted to through out the electoral college system.

      So yeah ... if you think there isnâ(TM)t a long term strategy, then perhaps you do not possess the cognitive abilities to understand these things.

      Or you are not paying attention. Theyâ(TM)ve said it. Clinton has said it. So wake up please. We are all Americans here. Change needs to take place. But in a sustainable fashion. Under control - of us ALL. So please first look at why trump one. A theory all your own. Do you really think the folks in Liberal Kansas are all racists or are they people, Americans, with working brains like everyone else on the planet? They arenâ(TM)t evil, just like the people in urban areas (where I live).

      We all want more good things to happen and less bad things. We all want to help people that are willing to work for it. We all (or most) donâ(TM)t want to give meaningless handouts to people who donâ(TM)t try. Economics come into play. We all would like medical insurance but, well, it costs money and most people donâ(TM)t want to pay for some lazy taking advantage of the system scumbag. They exist and there are tens of thousands of them.

      So like that guys channel. Itâ(TM)s nuances that really push us left or right. I see it as very similar goals but different ways to do it. Noticed that I did not bring up race once because it really isnâ(TM)t an issue. Itâ(TM)s a trick they play on fools. We all have the same a general capabilities for the minimum capacity. Which is the ability to work to at least provide rent money and food money. Some people really are stupid enough to keep having children they can not afford. Some people just donâ(TM)t care and will just take some Welfare money instead.

      Some of the bigger issues or differences which really arenâ(TM)t that big is abortion. There are people for it, as it is the law. There are some people against it by their beliefs but they do not want to make it illegal. Most people on immigration want legal immigration. No one wants and out of control system. Unless they just donâ(TM)t care some of the bigger issues or differences which really arenâ(TM)t that big is abortion. There are people for it, as it is the law. There are some people against it by their beliefs but they do not want to make it illegal. Most people on immigration want legal immigration. No one wants and out of control system. Unless they just donâ(TM)t care.

    58. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, another numbers guy -- didn't you have Clinton winning by at least 15 points?

    59. Re:Are we talking by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      In the UK . . . well, a majority voted for Brexit

      Define Brexit, I hear a lot of definitions around the office:

      - We don't want EU MEPs passing laws for us, it's undemocratic because I don't know how the EU works.
      - We pay money and get nothing in return, because I don't know how the EU works.
      - The EU took our industry and leaving it will bring it back, because I don't know history.
      - We don't want EU fishermen in our waters, because we don't want to travel as far as they do to get the same deal.
      - Bananas are supposed to be bendy, because I get my news from the Daily Mail.
      - We want our plumbers electricians and builders to be English, but not pay for it, because we don't know how supply and demand works.
      - My personal favourite: I'm sick of Indian immigrants taking over the country, because I REALLY don't know how the EU works.

      That last one is real. I actually heard someone complain about Indians. The ultimate irony is that by leaving the EU it allows the UK to free up the immigration program allowing more people from other places in the world to come in. That guy is going to be royally pissed, like Queen of England going duck hunting style pissed.

      Yes there are some racists bastards around, but they are a very vocal minority. Brexit wasn't won on xenophobia, it was won on downright ignorance combined with a really stupidly worded question that ultimately came down to:
      "I like everything the way it is"
        vs
      "I want something to change, but can't articulate what and at the pub I overheard someone saying maybe this will make that change happen,"

    60. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at this caring person so full of rage.

    61. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I got screamed at in the street for talking Japanese on the phone a few months back.

      That was probably antifa. They thought you were a facist.

      See, Japan were allies with Nazis, and Japan today are still very right winged. Their culture is still very xenophobic and sexist.

      Do remember Japan is also that culture that brought us sexist video games like Zelda and Mario, as covered by Anita Sarkeesian in her videos.

      So it's understandable (not that I agree with them) for antifa to think you're a fascist and screamed at you when they hear Japanese.

    62. Re:Are we talking by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Seriously, guys, wake up. I live in France. I was not born here.

      Then you should understand the political system a bit better. In multi-round elections you typically end up with a lovely split between parties. The second round will then bring out people opinion for or against one of the two candidates. A vote for FN isn't a vote for their policies but could be a number of things. A vote in their confidence, a vote for their policies, a vote that dislikes the opposition without any knowledge of the FN.

      You say 33.9% is their best score yet in a second round? A better way of looking at it would be that it is the second lowest vote from a party in a second round since direct elections were introduced in France, and the only party to ever score was was ... themselves in 2007.

      That is a phenomenal vote of no-confidence in the party. Out of 96 departments of France she was most popular in only 2. Out of the 18 regions she won 0.

      You have no cause for concern.

    63. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you know about 1/2 of the White population has a below average IQ too?

      Not true, actually, but they do have a below median IQ. Clearly the original AC falls below that line.

    64. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      duh. look at what they voted in in the US.

    65. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's used to take 25 years to get German citizenship, dunno how open that is

    66. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes,both sides are bad,you see...

    67. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you saying these people don't exist?

      No wonder you get called racist lol. When it quacks it's a duck.

    68. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, Bluffington has Doug Funny.

    69. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even read the fucking thread? He isn't hanging out with these people. They are strangers on the street mocking her for speaking Japanese.

      God you are so fucking dense. Readddd the whole fucking thread for context you idiot.

    70. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been white for 35 years and haven't once been called a racist. Maybe the shit you say makes you a racist. Not the being white part. Get a fucking clue.

    71. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually wrong; democracy as originally envisioned is rule by the people, and active participation in the running of the country, and not through majority vote. Majority vote leads to the tyranny of the majority, which the inventors, the ancient Greeks, were all too aware of. It is doutbful they would recognise current "democracies" as anything like. Of course, its equally likely we wouldn't agree with them over what constitutes a good form of government; Aristotle was big on aristocracy, for example.

    72. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most votes in general around the world are for the "lesser evil" or vote against

    73. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagreeing with socialism is not bigotry.

    74. Re: Are we talking by TrumpThemAll · · Score: 0

      Trump isn't a politician and that is a big part of why I voted for him. He already had more experience in creating jobs for people than any other politician in office and he is no PC.

    75. Re:Are we talking by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Skipping the 'I made up a fake view so that I can mock it' entries in your farcical list, a simple point on this one:

      We don't want EU fishermen in our waters, because we don't want to travel as far as they do to get the same deal.

      I don't see the EU granting British farmers vast tracts of land in France, Spain or Germany. I don't see the energy captured by Italian solar panels being shared equally across all EU states. I don't see EU nations enjoying the benefits of another state's natural resources anywhere except the sea.

      Why should the UK let every other cunt out there exploit our natural resources?

      The ultimate irony is that by leaving the EU it allows the UK to free up the immigration program

      The EU do nothing to prevent non-EU migration, which is indeed one of the reasons why the UK has such a sizeable population born outside the EU.

      Brexit wasn't won on xenophobia, it was won on downright ignorance combined with a really stupidly worded question

      I love the way that people that voted to remain in the EU entirely misunderstand why other people voted to leave, misstate those reasons then call the people that voted to leave ignorant.

      The ignorance involved is indeed ample, but it's repeatedly demonstrated by people such as yourself.

    76. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who understand statistics are scary. You should stay off the internet to avoid them.

    77. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You clealy don't know how to vote, we should name you as a great elector.

    78. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of "median", not "average". Nice try, though! You get a star for effort!

    79. Re:Are we talking by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Skipping the 'I made up a fake view so that I can mock it' entries in your farcical list

      Skipping your entire post for dismissing mine. These are just conversations I've had, nothing more. You can take it or leave it.

    80. Re:Are we talking by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I take it back, I will read and reply because ignoring ignorance is what got the UK to where it is today. So let's discuss and then we can all learn something.

      I don't see the EU granting British farmers vast tracts of land in France, Spain or Germany.

      Why should the UK let every other cunt out there exploit our natural resources?

      Errr yes they do. If you're in the UK, go move to Germany, buy a farm and go nuts. That's how the free movement and common resource model works. The UK is just as free to go fishing off the coasts of EU countries. But as for "why"? Maybe it's because that's what you signed up for.

      The EU do nothing to prevent non-EU migration, which is indeed one of the reasons why the UK has such a sizeable population born outside the EU.

      The EU prevent migration just fine save for the past couple of years due to the Germans and that has increased migration from a very specific subset of countries. None of which has anything to do with the countries I mentioned from my anecdote ... except Eastern Europeans.

      I love the way that people that voted to remain

      I assume you're talking about me? I didn't vote anything. I don't have any skin in the game at all. From the outside though I see the UK leaving as a good thing. Special little children given nothing but concessions and still unhappy and blaming everyone else for their own economic situation which has nothing to with the EU and everything to do with Thatcherism.

      The ignorance involved is indeed ample, but it's repeatedly demonstrated by people such as yourself.

      You know the amazing part about all of this. You got through this far and completely missed the point of my post. The reality is that this is just conversations that I overhear, and you have straight away come in passionately at multiple points.

      So for the slow people playing at home: The point is that there are multiple reasons for why people vote Brexit, the vast majority not linked to racism, and the vast majority were small issues based with few people actually wanting the whole "leave the entire EU with everything that entails" package.

      I can see how my comment would look like ignorance for someone who fundamentally doesn't understand it. That's okay. I hope you learned something from my reply.

    81. Re:Are we talking by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Skipping the 'I made up a fake view so that I can mock it' entries in your farcical list

      Skipping your entire post for dismissing mine. These are just conversations I've had, nothing more.

      Bananas are supposed to be bendy, because I get my news from the Daily Mail.

      I'm not GP, but really? You had a Brexit conversation where the flexibility or shape of bananas was a reason to leave?

    82. Re:Are we talking by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You had a Brexit conversation where the flexibility or shape of bananas was a reason to leave?

      Do you not realise what the the bendy banana debacle represents right? You may not know the history of this but the whole bendy banana thing was started by the Daily Mail expressing outrage that the EU would make a rule on the shape of bananas completely ignoring the reason why the rule came into place: To unify the EU labelling laws with the existing international trade rules that the masses had no idea already existed. Stupid part was when it was introduced and the way the Daily Flail presented it caused the news to go international.

      I haven't had a shape of banana in relation to Brexit conversation once, I've had it multiple times. It has even come up multiple times on Slashdot. I have educated people about the topic and why their frothing anger against the EU for this rule is completely unfounded multiple times. I have had these conversations before Brexit, and still do it after now after Brexit.

      The bendy banana debacle represents a population's willingness to accept everything they are told on face value. It represents senseless outrage driven by ignorance. It represents the people who get their news from the Daily Mail, Breitbart, and Infowars while all the time dismissing every alternative viewpoint as #fakenews.

      So yeah... the sad fact is ... really. And I'm not happy about it.

    83. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool anecdote

    84. Re: Are we talking by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      My sister-in-law voted for Brexit because she was having trouble getting an appointment that suited her with an NHS dermatologist. She'd show them!! But when Brexit won, she was horrified and moved to New Zealand. She's not very bright. Never has been.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    85. Re: Are we talking by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      Why come to Canada. Aside from Winter, here are the possible reasons:
      a) Money for research instead of going for fences.
      b) Reasonably sized classrooms
      c) Affordable housing
      d) Racial and religious tolerance
      e) Low cost of tuition for universities (compared to USA)
      f) Universal (portable) healthcare and pharmacare and about $10/00 day child care
      g) Canadians don't sue for trivial things. We don't see many lawyers adverts.
      g) Rifles are for sport. Rare to find a handgun unless its a police or military owner.
      h) Our average life expectancy is more than 2+ years above the USA.
      i) Homeless are only homeless if they want or because of drugs/alcohol or mental illness. Yet they are not discriminated against for healthcare benefits (To see doctor, to get treatments...)

      Negative
      =======
      High sales and income taxes. (Taxes pay for the items mentioned above).
      Country has lots of open space between cities. Major cities are distant from each other. While telephone and video web make up for it, travel costs are high.
       

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    86. Re:Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the reason the '30s were the way they were in Germany?

      Look into it, I think you'll find it had something to do with the way the '20s were in Germany. Anne Frankly, I think many are getting sick of Weimerica.

    87. Re: Are we talking by arth1 · · Score: 1

      g) Rifles are for sport. Rare to find a handgun unless its a police or military owner.

      I like that the mounties keep their guns in their holster, and don't even open the flap unless they really need to. Being stopped by them felt a lot safer than being stopped by American troopers, for sure.

    88. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a trend away from "the lesser evil" and towards "could be a mass murderer for all I care, but as long as they say they'll destroy the status quo...".

    89. Re: Are we talking by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He has had more experience screwing over everyone he deals with than any other politician in office, too.

      Let's face it, this is the natural next step in the evolution of "politics as usual": instead of business people buying politicians through lobbyists, just elect the business people and cut out the middle man. Corruption has never been so efficient!

    90. Re:Are we talking by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Well, while you may "think" iZombie is filmed in Seattle, it's actually filmed in Vancouver BC.

      No, this is in addition to the film and TV flight to Canada, this one includes actual scientists.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    91. Re: Are we talking by drsquare · · Score: 1

      It's amusing how even the racism in the leave campaign wasn't self consistent, let alone their economic arguments.

      Because people voted leave for multiple reasons, many of them contradictory. Some voted leave because they wanted more Asians, some voted leave to get rid of Asians. At least one of these groups are going to be disappointed.

  2. Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how dubya didn't get that reaction.

    1. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?

    2. Re:Funny by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      Trump says stupid things.
      Dubya DID stupid things.
      I think the latter is worse.

      Under Trump, the economy is booming.
      Under Dubya, we squandered trillions on stupid counter-productive wars, and the economy imploded.

      Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far.

    3. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You forgot the time he called someone a mean name on twitter.

    4. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far.

      Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him. Unfortunately, that won't last forever. His wrecking crew is getting settled in, and it is starting to show. Oh, and he's also firing everyone with any common sense in the White House. Fortunately, that also includes any sane lawyers to defend him against Mr Mueller and Mrs Storm.

    5. Re:Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...

    6. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, lots of the changes done so far will take some more time before you start to see the impacts. Only things like war really change the direction of macros overnight.

      Shit will get real soon enough.

    7. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought shit has been real for quite some time now.

    8. Re:Funny by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.

      He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals. But countries aren't like that, they will resist his shitty deals as much as possible. Maybe the UK will end up with one, due to being weak and desperate post-Brexit, but the other big markets like the EU, Japan and China won't.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give rats add to name calling so long as he fixes the economy and kicks SJW dumbfucks like you in the nuts.

    10. Re:Funny by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.

      If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.

    11. Re:Funny by Timothy2.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.

      Dubya was able to relish in Clinton's strong economic policies, and Obama kicked off his term facing the aftermath of Dubya's poor economic policies. Trump exploited Obama's economic policies to a ridiculous level to the point of actually trying to take credit for the booming economy during his first year, yet with the Dow down more than 2000 points since Janauary, alone, where's President Shitgibbon to take credit for *that*?

      Trump is going to run the country like any of his businesses, which is to say, drive it directly into the ground. We're talking about a man who whent bankrupt selling wine, steak and gambling to the American people. Nothing about that suggests he's a saavy businessman, let alone a capable politician.

    12. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...

      You are aware that Obama's the ONLY President in US history to never have a year the economy grew 3%, right?

      That's not surprising, since I'm sure you remember Obama's statements about "remaking the US economy" and his "war on coal".

    13. Re:Funny by rfengr · · Score: 0

      The stock market was up due to the prospects of having a non-socialist president, and the repatriation of foreign earnings. Do you really think the economy would have improved under Clinton or Sanders?

    14. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Trade war? Possible Nuclear War?

      Those aren't good results.

    15. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Recall that despite Clinton's scandals with Monica, he left the country with a surplus rather than a deficit, and Dubya spent it all on wars and tax cuts that evaporated the surplus. Afghanistan made sense, Iraq was a draining cluster fk coupled with a tax cut.

    16. Re:Funny by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.

      If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.

      You can't rely on Trump's incompetence, not everyone working for him is also an idiot.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    17. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.

      If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.

      I wouldn't go so far as to call his incompetence as a positive attribute. It is like saying one deadly disease that happens to kill off the cancer cells caused by another deadly disease is a positive outcome.

      Trump's affects on the economy reminds me a bit of the Chinese schools built with shoddy materials that subsequently killed all those kids when the earthquake came.

      The rot from Trump and those like Trump will be causing harm for decades after he is gone. One can hope that everyone will wise up and no longer drink from that poisoned well, but I rather think they will just improve the sweetener. Maybe they will offer a custom sweetener that is tailored to everyone, while upping the poison levels.

    18. Re:Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).

    19. Re:Funny by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      The Dow actually went down during Dubya's 8 years, which is unheard of. He also got the US into a big expensive war for no good reason so that's a tough act to follow for sure. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine future historians praising Trump for ignoring those pesky climate alarmists.

    20. Re:Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's not surprising, since he became president in full subprime mortgage crisis, and long term trends point to a permanent slowdown in economic growth in the developed world.

      FTFY.

      Also, how backward do you have to be to think that coal is still a pillar of the economy? You (and Trump) are stuck in the 1800s, and while you can stand on the brakes of your own country's progress all you want, it won't stop the rest of the world from getting ahead of you. Even less so if you're squandering all your international political capital.

    21. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wrong, there was no surplus, it was all Washington doublespeak. There are two parts to the national debt - public debt and intragovernmental holdings. During the Clinton years the public debt part was paid down by borrowing money in the intragovernmental holdings mostly from Social Security. So the debt was not paid down, excess Social Security funds that by law are required to be re-invested into securities became additional intragovernmental debt. During the Clinton years the national debt total continued to rise:

      FY1993 $4.411488 trillion debt
      FY1994 $4.692749 trillion debt, increase of $281.26 billion
      FY1995 $4.973982 trillion debt, increase of $281.23 billion
      FY1996 $5.224810 trillion debt, increase of $250.83 billion
      FY1997 $5.413146 trillion debt, increase of $188.34 billion
      FY1998 $5.526193 trillion debt, increase of $113.05 billion
      FY1999 $5.656270 trillion debt, increase of $130.08 billion
      FY2000 $5.674178 trillion debt, increase of $17.91 billion
      FY2001 $5.807463 trillion debt, increase of $133.29 billion

      FY2001 was Clinton's last budget submitted before Bush took office.

    22. Re:Funny by cahuenga · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end.

      Definitively untrue: http://www.taintedalpha.com/wp...

    23. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end.

      Clinton left office with a budget surplus: how did that fair under Dubya (and the GOP)?

      It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end.

      Yeah, a lot of negative economic growth in this chart (from 2014):

              http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/us-economic-growth-soars-reaches-11-year-high /s

      And from 2018 after the administrative change:

            http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/economic-growth-remains-steady-falls-short-trumps-vows

      A graph from the FRED:

            https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/01/chart-day-economy-grew-19-obamas-final-quarter/

      Economic output was strong during most of Obama's time in office, and not simply "somewhere near the end".

    24. Re: Funny by dskoll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Trump's done wonders for the stock markets.

      The economy is doing well coincidentally. It takes years for the economy as a whole to react to changes, so Tump's economy is floating on Obama's legacy.

      But the stock market is a bellwether. Trump's ridiculous trade war with China is eventually going to tank the economy.

    25. Re:Funny by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Funny by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years, and only imploded somewhere near the end. It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end. I wouldn't be so quick to laud Trump's excuses for economic policy...

      Also, considering how badly the USD is doing, I wouldn't be so quick to say the US economy is doing well at all.

      The US dollar is dropping almost as fast as the GB Pound. USD/GBP is almost back to pre-brexit levels where as the GBP vs other major currencies is down at least 20%.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    27. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far

      What about the trade war he has launched against China?

      Is that a smart move on Trump's part?

    28. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under Trump, the economy is booming.

      There's only so much that POTUS can actually accomplish without Congress going along, but trade wars are one of those things. Let's wait and see how this plays out, because in the short term, it's been having a fairly negative effect on the stock market.

    29. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's excuse for the economy is like blaming the ondeck player for you striking out. He had bad forward looking fiscal, no holds-spending policy that did not inspire long term market confidence.

    30. Re: Funny by reanjr · · Score: 1

      That's largely a correction from the boom years that Clinton accidentally stumbled into due to the dot-com boom. Sometimes, the market doesn't give a shit who's president. The systemic forces of the 90s markets were laid out in earlier years, and had nothing to do with Clinton. The subsequent market collapse was expected and had little to do with Bush (except the expensive wars; it wasn't economic policy).

    31. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it won't.

    32. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, when the tariffs have been unfair for decades it makes sense to correct them to help us economically. Especially impt now that large parts of China are rising middle class and can now buy our shit. What made sense 30 years ago may not be as prudent today.

    33. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I just checked the currency, the only one it's losing ground on is the British Pound, and that's not really so much the Dollar dropping but the Pound recovering. It's currently $1.40 to the pound, before brexit it was $1.60. Against the Euro it's $1.22, which is a pretty historical norm. I'm curious as to which major currency it's doing poorly against? And the follow up to that is, is it possible that currency is just doing well? Because against at least two major currencies it's doing pretty typically.

    34. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slow and steady growth is better than boom-and-bust (at least, for the majority of people). The boom-and-bust cycle, where you find the huge growth numbers, are what stock market gamblers want, but it's dangerous for most individuals in the economy. When the economy is growing at a rate of 3%+, it's likely that unsustainable inflation is occurring and a major recession is on the horizon. Slow and steady growth is the sign of a truly healthy economy.

      The problem is that politicians love to brag about big numbers. When the economy starts to overheat, they just pour more gas on the fire. The tax cuts that congress recently passed are an example of this. Or the tax cuts Bush passed while in the middle of two wars. Both of those situations are times where you want to increase taxes (or interest rates) to prevent uncontrollable inflation. But most congress critters, even if they understand the fundamentals of economics, refuse to implement sound economic policy because if conflicts with their so-called platform. When you make tax cuts an ideological raison d'être rather than a pragmatic tool, you fuck up the economy with ill-timed tax cuts that cause chaotic upswings in the economy that the market eventually corrects with a recession.

    35. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I like to refer to it as a cash flow surplus doing the Clinton year or two. Tim S.

      Wrong, there was no surplus, it was all Washington doublespeak. There are two parts to the national debt - public debt and intragovernmental holdings. During the Clinton years the public debt part was paid down by borrowing money in the intragovernmental holdings mostly from Social Security. So the debt was not paid down, excess Social Security funds that by law are required to be re-invested into securities became additional intragovernmental debt. During the Clinton years the national debt total continued to rise:

      FY1993 $4.411488 trillion debt FY1994 $4.692749 trillion debt, increase of $281.26 billion FY1995 $4.973982 trillion debt, increase of $281.23 billion FY1996 $5.224810 trillion debt, increase of $250.83 billion FY1997 $5.413146 trillion debt, increase of $188.34 billion FY1998 $5.526193 trillion debt, increase of $113.05 billion FY1999 $5.656270 trillion debt, increase of $130.08 billion FY2000 $5.674178 trillion debt, increase of $17.91 billion FY2001 $5.807463 trillion debt, increase of $133.29 billion

      FY2001 was Clinton's last budget submitted before Bush took office.

    36. Re: Funny by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Funny

      All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    37. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your contention of "the ONLY President in US history to never have a year the economy grew 3%" is muh recession. When "US history" includes things like the great depression and the oil shock. Interesting.

    38. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Trump says stupid things.
      Dubya DID stupid things.

      Starting a trade war with China isn't stupid? The farm crisis of the 1980s was partially caused by trade policy with the Soviet Union. The travel band isn't stupid? The massive tax cut for mega-corp that raises the deficit isn't stupid? Exempting massive banks from banking regulations passed after the 2008 financial crisis isn't stupid?

      The stupid crap Trump has done so far, in just over a year just hasn't come to a head yet. It took a while for everyone to realize the disaster that was GWB too.

    39. Re:Funny by quantaman · · Score: 1

      Any president has a year of overlap with the previous one with respect to economics. Trump was elected in November, generally wouldn't pass a budget until about March, and then you have 2-3 quarters before those policies are enacted and the economy feels those policies in earnest. Trump dragged his feet with respect to his first budget, so that shifts the curve. When the economy finally caught up to Trump's big mouth, you not only saw a decline in the market but chaotic fluctuations not seen since the global economic crisis of 2008 and a short hiccup in late 2016/early-2016.

      You say that but imagine that in 2008 the economy held on to late November, or even February of '09.

      How many people would still lay the blame for the meltdown on the Bush-era policies in that case?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    40. Re:Funny by wbr1 · · Score: 1
      Coal is a dead tech. Any government propping is just that, short-term gain and propping up a dying industry. It is happening whether you like it or not. Oil is next and it will go out harder than coal.

      A government should not be squandering treasure to hold up dying companies and technology. It should be using that treasure (your tax dollars) to prepare. Things like retraining workers to different industries, infrastructure improvements for towns affected to attract other business, etc. Not doing that means that the government is really only looking out for a few wallets now, not you or your family in the future.

      --
      Silence is a state of mime.
    41. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By doubling the national debt from ~10T to ~20T? That's OK with you?

    42. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't give rats add to name calling so long as he fixes the economy and kicks SJW dumbfucks like you in the nuts.

      Behold the intellectual level of your average Trump voter. I guess spite and schadenfreude are now a political philosophy. Way to go, you really showed those liberals how smart you are. Oh yeah, their respect for you is through the roof now...

    43. Re:Funny by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Indeed, who could have predicted there would be a worse president than Bush Jr?

      Stupid is as stupid does.

      Trump says stupid things. Dubya DID stupid things. I think the latter is worse.

      Under Trump, the economy is booming. Under Dubya, we squandered trillions on stupid counter-productive wars, and the economy imploded.

      Trump has plenty of potential to be a terrible president, but objectively he is doing okay so far.

      Mmm, let's see how his trade war with Chine works out.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    44. Re:Funny by johanw · · Score: 1

      At least he's not trying to provoke a war with Russia like the other candidate.

    45. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis. The UK went the opposite way and lost a decade, just the same as Japan did in the 90s. Frustrating as bail-outs are, the alternative is worse.

      Why are those the only options? I prefer the Icelandic way of dealing with the situation and not burdening taxpayers with an enormous debt brought about by bankers' stupidity.

    46. Re:Funny by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Mainly by being too incompetent to change too much the society Obama left him.

      If he is getting good results, then maybe you should view his incompetence as a positive attribute.

      Trump's incompetence is a positive attribute. But that's not really a good thing to say about the President of the United States.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    47. Re: Funny by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      He'd be kicking ass except for his policies re: the FCC, air quality, water quality and torture. And those Satanic, black-eyed minions, Sessions and Pence... but Trump's policies re: trade and immigration? Yeah, I'm with you.

    48. Re:Funny by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      That's not surprising, since I'm sure you remember Obama's statements about "remaking the US economy" and his "war on coal".

      What, you think the economy is being held back because we're not mining enough coal? The 19th century called, they want their energy source back.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    49. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing fucking 3 card montey with government debt is what politicians do best!

    50. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The best you can say about Trump's economic policies is that he hasn't tanked the economy yet, but is working hard to get there. A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.

      Do you know what China did to the photovoltaic market? They directly backed all of their solar panel-producing companies so that they could sell their products below cost, which ended up bankrupting pretty much every American photovoltaic company, and once they had no competitors the Chinese government stopped pumping cash into their companies and the prices were raised. They also do this with rare earth metals. Tariffs are exactly what are needed to prevent these sorts of things from happening and protecting local competitors.

    51. Re: Funny by reanjr · · Score: 1

      Sanders is a wild card. Certainly with a supportive Congress, the economy would be radically different under Sanders. Shifted. Perhaps better, perhaps worse. Clinton would have continued existing policies and been able to provide a sense of stability. The glacially slow Obama recovery would have continued. We would have likely seen the stock market grow more sensibly. Once we see the full effect of the impending Trump correction, we'll know if the Trump boom was just a precursor to a Trump bust, or if it was the beginning of solid growth.

    52. Re: Funny by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      And I left out the FCC...

    53. Re: Funny by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Brainfart; apparently I did not... :/

    54. Re:Funny by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Funny

      Funny how dubya didn't get that reaction.

      People were talking about moving to Canada under W too. I'm not sure how many actually followed through on it. The thing is, most of us thought W would go down as the worst President in modern history. But then the GOP said, "Hold my beer".

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    55. Re: Funny by reanjr · · Score: 1

      You're extrapolating from an extremely small window of data. The newly arrived market volatility suggests we may have just seen an accumulation and burst of pent-up sell pressure, which could easily send the markets down far enough to wipe out the Trump boom.

    56. Re:Funny by johanw · · Score: 1

      When the Euro was first introduced, 1 US$ was worth more than 1 EUR. Now it is consistently the other way around.

    57. Re:Funny by Uberbah · · Score: 2

      Obama really does deserve credit for powering the US economy out of the financial crisis.

      By letting the same banks that crashed the economy in the first place to steal millions of homes through fraudclosure? Banks only grew larger and stayed over-leveraged under his watch. Like Obama's decision not to prosecute torturers leading directly to Gina "I tortured some foks" Haspel being nominated to head the CIA, his decision not to prosecute a single bank or banker will lead directly to another economic crisis. And he printed trillions of dollars to loan to banks at 0% interest, instead of helping people that actually work for a living.

      Thanks Obama!

    58. Re:Funny by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      The stock market was up due to the prospects of having a non-socialist president, and the repatriation of foreign earnings. Do you really think the economy would have improved under Clinton or Sanders?

      Of course it would have. History has shown quite clearly that the economy does better under Democratic administrations.

      https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#27a9d68a6786

      https://www.aeaweb.org/research/why-does-the-economy-do-better-democrats-white-house

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    59. Re: Funny by Uberbah · · Score: 1, Interesting

      All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election.

      All presidents since Nixon have been further to the right than he was, and Nixon of course was a right winger. Just how far back are you going here?

    60. Re:Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Try reading past "and".

    61. Re:Funny by Ichijo · · Score: 2

      That graph shows positive q-o-q change beginning Q3 2009, only 2 quarters after Obama took office. So you are correct, it did not "only started improving somewhere near the end" of the Obama years.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    62. Re:Funny by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      He seems to have assumed that it would be like when it was running a business, with lots of people kissing his ass and eager to do deals.

      ...and if he fucks up and goes bankrupt, that he can just dust it off and go start again.

    63. Re: Funny by Jodka · · Score: 1

      All leftist politicians have very forward-thinking 5 and 10 year plans, conveniently past the next election. They are like the guy daily wearing a sign that the world will end tomorrow...always tomorrow.

      Well, won't that be great, that also happens to be the same day the climate apocalypse begins.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    64. Re:Funny by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      A) "Dubya" did not have the power to spend money that was not approved by Congress.
      B) Clinton only had a "surplus" through accounting manipulation of moving the Social Security funds into the general funds
      C) Clinton had the benefit of being President during and internet bubble and the Year 2000 bug scare, where huge amounts of economic activity were propelled by early replacement of capital investments that led to a lull in replacements directly after 1999...you know, when "Dubya" took over.

      But, you go ahead and keep living with your kindergarten view of world history.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    65. Re:Funny by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

      Since you're apparently some kind of capitalist-utilitarian who's fine with plutocratic racist demagogues shitting up the world as long as the stock market is doing OK, maybe you should hold your praise until you see how President Tweety's trade war with China plays out, and how much his useless monument to xenophobia in the middle of the desert costs. Those have the potential to make Dubya's wars look cheap in retrospect.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    66. Re:Funny by Jodka · · Score: 1

      Recall that despite Clinton's scandals with Monica, he left the country with a surplus rather than a deficit

      Clinton's great achievement was to acquiesce to a Republican leadership in Congress which practiced spending restraint.

      Of course, the majority of Republican congress people today are gutless, lying spendweasels, but for a brief moment in modern times they were not.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    67. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Under Dubya, the economy was booming as well... until his policies smashed it into the biggest recession the US had ever seen. And all signs point to Trump repeating this behavior, so expect this period of prosperity ushered in by Obama to be ruined by Trump.

    68. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does that "and" compare to an economic crisis like the Great Depression? Or are you just trying to make lame excuses.

    69. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The economy did not do just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years. Bush inherited a dot-com bubble that was inflated during Clinton's presidency. After the dot-com bubble popped and the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center towers occurred, the economy went into a funk. Up until 2003, there were constant complaints that the U.S. was in a "jobless recovery."

      The jobless recovery was treated with a credit/housing bubble which popped near the end of Bush's second term.

      If people really want to assign blame for what is going on in the U.S., it's not just one side or another (Left versus Right). Firstly, they're both complicit. But a very big player that no one seems to mention and that is the Federal Reserve and its extremely poor or perhaps corrupt management of the banking system. For the past 20+ years, it has been a serial blower of asset bubbles, from the dot-com bubble to the housing bubble and now yet another bubble.

    70. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this modded funny when it is undeniably true? I think Americans don't realize how insanely right wing they are in general.

    71. Re:Funny by Jodka · · Score: 0

      The pattern goes even further back. It conclusively disproves the myth that progressive governments would somehow be worse for the economy than conservative ones; in fact, the evidence points in the opposite direction (once you factor in the time it takes before you see the results).

      Absolute horseshit.

      The Republican Congress set the agenda and in Bill Clinton's own words, the era of big governments was over. Whereas later Obamacare would be enacted, back then Hillary's socialized medicine scam was utterly smashed. It was an era dominated by Republican pro-growth fiscal policy and prominently anti-progressive government. Lefty growsed constantly back then about conservative control of policy and predicted the economy would collapse and the poor would starve. Then there was a huge economic boom and now Progressives claim credit for it.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    72. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama deserves as much credit for getting the U.S. out of the housing bubble bust as Trump deserves for the boom in the stock market during his first year in office. That is, none. Presidents, generally speaking, are more along for the ride than actual motivators of the economy during their terms in office. The true effect of a president's economic policies usually aren't clearly seen until well after a president has left office.

      And Obama utterly failed when it came to dealing with the corrupt U.S. banking system. The banking bailouts could have been done differently and if Obama is as smart as those who blindly claim he is, he could have wiped out the equity holders while ensuring that the institutions were not shut down. Wiping out the shareholders would have enforced greater vigilance on the new shareholders after the banks were restructured and new equity issued.

      Shall we also talk about the very questionable appointments to key offices that Obama made? Timothy Geithner for Secretary of the Treasury, for example?

      The truth of the matter is, the U.S. hasn't had a good president since JFK. If you don't put as much an emphasis on results, maybe Jimmy Carter squeaks in and, don't have a heart attack, maybe George H.W. Bush.

    73. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A trade war with China is only going to hurt both sides, as are the steel tariffs with the rest of the world.

      One of the USA's main exports to China is agricultural products. So rural Americans (who voted for Trump in large numbers) are likely to be hit particularly hard.

    74. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It phases out the tax cuts for individuals, so that "sugar" withdrawal will hit about when the parties exchange control. Brilliant Machiavellian timing.

    75. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have never understood why people think the president is responsible for the state of the economy. It's like quarterbacks getting all the glory or blame for wins or losses, and just is fallacious.

    76. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, if only Bill Clinton didn't have to pay interest on the debt Reagan and Bush left for him...

      We all know one of 'those guys' who went nuts with credit cards at an early age, and then spent the next twenty years paying them off. Now imagine a) that's you and b) the guy who ran up the debt (and got all the benefits) wasn't you... But you still have to pay it off, and over the violent objections of that other guy's best friends...

      Bush I tried to be fiscally responsible and got tossed out of office for it. Says a bit about the 'fiscal conservatism' of the party that claims to be fiscally responsible...

      AC

    77. Re:Funny by lazarus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. How do I put this succinctly? America has gone too far down the road of "instant gratification" and a LOT of people don't understand that shit doesn't happen instantly. Like the entire US economy. Sure, the stock markets "react" to policy changes, but the "economy" is a machine and it takes a long time to feel the effects of changes to the policies that drive it.

      So the dumbasses that seem to make up the majority of the population, fed on decades of TV ads promising them that their life will be fantastic instantly if they only bought {whatever} think that a president can alter the economy instantly and that if something good or bad happens then the person in charge must be 100% responsible for it.

      Worse? These fuckwits are now often seen in senior positions in US corporations and believe that knee-jerk reactions trump long-term strategy. This does not bode well for US competitiveness long-term.

      As a colleague of mine has put it multiple times: The Chinese are playing chess. Trump is playing Donkey Kong. Thing is it is not just Trump. He is just symptomatic of the larger problem of a country that has lost its way.

      --
      I am not interested in articles about life extension advancements.
    78. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Growth was under 3% during Hoover.

    79. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Average growth under Obama was 2%, and under both Bushes, 2%. That's probably the new normal, the 90s under Clinton being a one-off, and only some of that is likely to be due to Clinton or Congress, as you can see the same trends over most of the western world.

    80. Re: Funny by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      It worked for Iceland as it's a small nation with a particular financial sector with respect to external financial assets. Not an option for most

    81. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure, let's let the Kenyan Socialist Terrorist-In-Chief prosecute good, upstanding white folk who were just following orders. No one at all will overreact!

    82. Re:Funny by will_die · · Score: 1

      Seems you are forgetting the $787B that obama asked Bush to appropriate before the inaguration. That was sold on the idea that instead of the sixteen months that economists were forecasting it would take from the start of the year to when the recession would end, it would only take nine months.
      Go back and look at obama's speeching how he would do it all in nine months and make back the money requested because he would end the recession quickly.
      In reality it took 18 months from that point before the recession was over.
      Obama did nothing that deserves happy credit for helping the US economy. From this failed plans to end the recession early, to his hallmark cash-for-clunkers. At the best you can say he didn't lead us to another recessions however there are plenty of liberal economists and democrat party analysits that were forecasting a huge market crash last year so even his own party was expecting him to.

    83. Re: Funny by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      Obama took office in January 2009, the recession ended at the end of June 2009. That's not eighteen months. The ENTIRE recession was eighteen months, which might be the figure you are confusing it with.

    84. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet the rhetoric in the UK is often that the Euro is a failure and we should be more like the USA.

    85. Re: Funny by q_e_t · · Score: 1

      In 2002-3 the fear in western nations was deflation and then the potential for a depression. Greenspan avoided that, but the can was only kicked as far as 2007. Hopefully the can is no longer in play.

    86. Re:Funny by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The snark is good, but one of the (many) actual annoyances from Obamabots was how they would insist that Obama shouldn't hold people that wouldn't vote for him to account, because they might not vote for him.

    87. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, the CBO would disagree with you. Or, rather, disagree the random conservative weblogger you're using as a source. Let us look at their "The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2010 to 2020" document, which also has historical data going back decades:

      * https://www.cbo.gov/publication/41880?index=10871

      Let's start with Summary Figure 2, "Total Revenues and Outlays", where the Revenues line goes above the Outlays line. Then we have Figure 1-1, "The Total Deficit or Surplus, 1970 to 2020", where the line goes above 0 (i.e., a surplus). Finally there's table F-2, "Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public, 1970 to 2009, as a Percentage of Gross Domestic Product", where the years are 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 have a "Total" (Deficit or Surplus) that is positive in surplus.

      And even if your (blogger's) numbers were correct, it would mean that Clinton manage to reduce the deficits by almost 95%. Not a bad accomplishment in its own right.

      For all their bluster about fiscal conservativism, the GOP never bother being fiscal conservatives. All they seem to do when they get into power is cut revenues (i.e., taxes for the folks at the top percentiles of income (trickle down!)), and increase military spending.

    88. Re:Funny by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      not everyone working for him is also an idiot.

      Most of them are, and with the recent personnel turnover, the level of incompetence is clearly increasing.

    89. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong.

    90. Re:Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      Does that "and" compare to an economic crisis like the Great Depression?

      The politifact link clarifies that "in US history" should actually be taken as "since 1929", which is one of the reasons why it got "mostly true". 1929 is the year starting from which US annual GDP (and growth thereof) data is available, and also coincides with both the Great Depression and the Hoover administration. Hoover went out of office in March 1933, and if you look at the raw data, you'll see that for the whole year of 1933 (so actually from begin 1933 to begin 1934), growth was a whopping 10%. Yes, this is all kinds of fscked up, but it is actually how you have to interpret the data to qualify Roscam's statement as "true". The 10% was of course a rebound effect of the great depression and a prelude to its resolution, as other economic indicators were still bad at the time; I don't think people would be very happy at all if, say, Trump were to give them that kind of 10%.

      More generally spoken, the GDP made (to present standards) wild jumps up and down till about 1951, which made it pretty easy to achieve Roscam's artificial criterion of "a whole [calendar] year of 3 percent growth". After that there was a relative stability with average growth inching slightly lower every decade; eventually, someone was going to fall under that 3% threshold. Consequently, you can almost pick your president and adjust the 3% threshold to make him look "worse than any preceding president" ("almost" because of statistical noise).

      TL;DR: with a lot of lawyering, Peter Roscam (R-Ill.) put together a carefully worded statement that would make Obama's economic record look quite bad when taken at face value, but that could easily be adapted to your president of choice and is therefore not all that meaningful. Politifact could't give it anything else than "mostly true" because the lawyering largely checks out, even though it's blatantly dishonest (and treading a thin line).

      And you would have know all this if you'd given that politifact link an honest read.

    91. Re:Funny by Memnos · · Score: 1

      My stock portfolio would like a word with you about his "good results".

      And unlike the previous results he took so much credit for, but with the exception of the tax "reform" had absolutely nothing to do with, these latest bad results are a direct and immediate result of his lovely little trade war. And it will hit the pocketbooks of folks who own no stocks at all.

      There's almost always a bit of a lag before a President begins to make his mark on the economy. Looks like we're seeing Trump making his mark right about.. now.

      --
      I don't trust atoms -- they make up stuff.
    92. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who
      Gives
      A
      Fuck.

      Jesus Christ. It is offering nothing. Obama's not our president. The world didn't end. Move the fuck on and critique the current president. Because he's the only one that fucking matters.

      Tldr: get off Obama's dick.

    93. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TLDR: Republicans did everything right. Democrats did everything wrong. Straight from the mouth of a republican. News at 11.

    94. Re: Funny by h33t+l4x0r · · Score: 1

      The Dow was hurt by the subprime mortgage fiasco which could have been prevented with regulation (a dirty word to the GOP). You're thinking of the dot-bomb which affected mainly tech stocks (Nasdaq).

    95. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and look at how his âoeaccomplishmentâ against immigrants are making people want to leave for the north.

      His message (written and spoken) is humiliating this country and his policies are hurting us all.

      The economy is booming only after we paid for the disasters created by wall st. Heâ(TM)s just at the right place at the right time.

      Heâ(TM)s doing okay so far? Heh ... I think the best is yet to come.

    96. Re: Funny by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      Trump's economy is still largely due to Obama's policies.....and the economy isn't actually booming for most people. They get the same crap pay or worse, no job security and now less security is access to health care thanks to Trump.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    97. Re: Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an option for most

      It's an option if you're willing to deal with the repercussions. I would have preferred that option.

    98. Re:Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of a dumb fuck are you?

      -- Perhaps you forgot how the economy did just fine in the beginning of the Dubya years,
      -- and only imploded somewhere near the end.

      That's because Bill Clinton fixed it from the previous moron.

      -- It kept on doing bad in the beginning of the Obama years, and only started improving somewhere near the end.

      That's because Obama did everything humanly impossible with all the resistance he had to fix it until then next Republican fuck face could drop it right back in the toilet again.

    99. Re: Funny by reanjr · · Score: 1

      The Community Reinvestment Act was signed by Clinton and is the primary driver of the subprime crisis. I don't understand why the GOP is being brought up related to this.

    100. Re: Funny by OneAhead · · Score: 1

      It's not about Obama, it's about fighting misconceptions about liberal financial policies (such as Obama's). Misconceptions that are partially responsible for putting "the current president" in place, and that may give you more of the same if you're not careful.

  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like they really need it.

  4. Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 2

    Canada is always there when the USA needs them most:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    1. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it's nice to know someone still appreciates learning.

    2. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you referring to US draft dodgers? every time the US has draft, canada's population spikes.

    3. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by rikkards · · Score: 3, Funny

      Looking at who you voted for in the last election, your opinions don't really mean shit.

      Trump, Making (the rest of North) America Great Again

    4. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They kicked the shit out of you once already...

    5. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ' every time the US has draft, canada's population spikes.'

      Then shut the damn window already!

    6. Re:Canada To USA: Ya, We Got This by Hamsterdan · · Score: 2

      Don't be too quick to judge, we elected Trudeau

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  5. Canada to the US: Knowledge is power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    And as the Know Nothings party, now called Republicans, destroy your education systems and industry, we thank them greatly for making more room for us.

    PS.
    The world is laughing at you. Respond, angry I bet! Have at it, tell me how MAGA worked and 'merika is the greatest country in the whole USA! Come on, we all want to see your logical, thought out arguments...

    1. Re:Canada to the US: Knowledge is power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans, destroy your education systems

      Yeah, republicans aren't the ones trying to shove identity politics into math and engineering or patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis".

    2. Re:Canada to the US: Knowledge is power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NYC schools were ruined by Nazi Republicans?
      Damn, never knew this. Thanks for enlightening me on who is responsible for the shit public schools of NYC.

  6. Ummmmm... by Jarwulf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know this place has been going downhill for awhile but this is an especially shitty submission even by msmash standards. A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?

    1. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump's critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II.

    2. Re: Ummmmm... by GabeGhearing · · Score: 1

      Slashdot has had some doozies lately. The one about Apple killing âoeDisplayLinkâ was fairly galling. https://m.slashdot.org/story/3... No mention that âoeDisplayLinkâ has nothing to do with âoeDisplayPortâ and basically hasnâ(TM)t worked on MacOS in the last 5 years. DisplayLinkâs hardware has similar Linux support(e.g. support seems to have stopped). Window still has some issues, but is fairly usable. https://support.displaylink.co... https://support.displaylink.co...

    3. Re:Ummmmm... by quantaman · · Score: 2

      I know this place has been going downhill for awhile but this is an especially shitty submission even by msmash standards. A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?

      I agree the summary about 24 apparently strong academics largely unknown outside their field is underwhelming.

      However, I do know of a lot of well-educated people who've either put off plans to move to the States or are in the process of trying to move back.

      Imagine another country elected someone like Trump and he still had support of a substantial portion of the population, would you really feel comfortable moving there?

      --
      I stole this Sig
    4. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the advanced stages of the disease, the afflicted lose touch with reality. Opinion is unmoored from fact. Life resembles a dark fairy tale in which the villain – Trump – is an amalgam of all the worst tyrants in history, past and present, while the heroes –Trump's critics – are akin to the resistance fighters of World War II.

      It's almost as if the behavior from the Republicans during Obama's administration never happened. Sorry, you don't get to talk about Trump Derangement Syndrome after the Terrorist Fist Bump, the Birther movement, Obama as a Socialist, rants about Obama phones, however many Beghazi hearings and investigations that turned up nothing, and whatever other paranoid stupidity that came out of the Republicans between 2008 and 2016.

      Sure, some on the left have lost their minds over Trump. But the right has a lock on losing their shit over the other party inhabiting the White House.

    5. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a sampling. Several of my developer/engineer friends have emigrated to Canada, NZ, various EU countries this year, all enticed by hefty salaries, tax exemptions, and visa sponsorship. I've gotten dozens of offers myself, from Norwegian, Canadian, and other countries. I honestly can't think of any of my peers that haven't gotten offers similar.

      The USA IS experiencing a brain drain, and if things get much worse I will uproot my family and take the next offer that literally doubles my salary after exchange rate is accounted for. This was predicted pretty much as soon as trump was elected, and it is obviously happening.

    6. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They aren't even Americans in the first place. Who cares?

    7. Re:Ummmmm... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 0

      I know this place has been going downhill for awhile but this is an especially shitty submission even by msmash standards. A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?

      Yes, yes it is. Hater!

      Now stop micro-aggressing me and head off to re-education camp.

    8. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Academics tend to be way more international than most people and are almost completely unbound by immigration controls. I know that I've made decisions not to move to specific cities due to the political situation (debt, poor infrastructure, moron mayors) so why wouldn't they?

    9. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Retard, try reading. Seriously. This is one element in a larger spread of recruiting developments targeted at attracting talent to Canada. The stupidity of the US and the UK make up important driving factors because they were the previous brain drain beneficiaries. Note the emphasis on previous though.

    10. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > A handful of academics get a boatload of money to move to canada is proof of a net braindrain in canada's direction and somehow this extends to proof that this is all trump's fault based upon one random comment?

      Wait, I got an idea... what if you make a wall at the North, too? Then besides avoiding Mexicans you can make sure Americans won't leave without proper authorization, nicht wahr?

      Oh, and nobody thinks it's all Trump's fault. Actually, it's all your fault. Yours and of the others who voted Trump.

    11. Re:Ummmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unhinge more

    12. Re:Ummmmm... by bitingduck · · Score: 1

      The CRC program isn't new - I have a friend who managed to miss the W years by getting a CRC chair shortly after he was elected. It's a very good program that attracts a lot of international researchers, both US researchers and people who might otherwise have gone to the US. So it's not a handful of academics, it's a steady stream, and it's no so different from how the US became a research powerhouse. The US research community is very far from homegrown - it came about because from WW II at least through the cold war it welcomed researchers from around the world and gave them a comfortable lifestyle that made it attractive to stay rather than returning to their home countries. It may not be enough at a time to be noticeable in the US research establishment, but it's very effective in enhancing Canadian research.

  7. Great news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    We can look forward to many, many wonderful academic paper. For example there's the sex life of castrated transexaul protofeminist mental cases. And how about intersectional anarco-feminism of color? How about the emotional stability of carrots and parsnips, their intersectionality with gender veganism. Thank God for Canada!

    1. Re:Great news by Stephan+Schulz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We can look forward to many, many wonderful academic paper. For example there's the sex life of castrated transexaul protofeminist mental cases. And how about intersectional anarco-feminism of color? How about the emotional stability of carrots and parsnips, their intersectionality with gender veganism. Thank God for Canada!

      Given this informed contribution, maybe it's a win-win-situation. Canada acquires a heap of top academics to improve research and development, and to build a better, fairer, more able society, and the US loses an equal number of inconvenient Cassandras and Laocoöns who only speak inconvenient truths that nobody wants to hear. Ignorance is bliss indeed. At least until the Danaans come out of the gift horse....

      --

      Stephan

  8. Re:Brain drain by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Ireland is attractive because of the culture and language.

    The Netherlands is attractive because the working language is English and they have a 30% rule, where for the first 8 years you get the first 30% of your income completely outside the tax system. Also, the Netherlands is very progressive.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  9. Re:Brain drain by captbollocks · · Score: 1

    And like Canada they are way too fucking cold!!

  10. Americans must love this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is capitalism and the free market at work. Here in Europe we have attracted quite a few American climate scientists, mainly in France. Keep up the good work my American friends!

    1. Re:Americans must love this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome.

      Enjoy people who are used to "I am an AUTHORITY! Listen and believe!" and throw a fit when asked "Can I see your data?".

    2. Re:Americans must love this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enjoy people who are used to "I am an AUTHORITY! Listen and believe!" and throw a fit when asked "Can I see your data?".

      Do you mean Republicans or Christians?

  11. go canada by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    More money spent on science is always a good thing, and discoveries made in any country help us all.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:go canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More money spent on science is always a good thing.

      Only if you're someone who believes resources are infinite.

    2. Re: go canada by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Funny

      Impractically speaking, resources are infinite. The problem is merely getting them. The only thing that isn't infinite is nitpicky anonymous cowards.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re: go canada by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      infinite : adj without end. "There were infinite nitpicky anonymous cowards this morning," he observed.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:go canada by Jodka · · Score: 0

      More money spent on science is always a good thing...

      Proof that Lefty does not comprehend economic scarcity, trade-offs, and marginal utility.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une signature.
    5. Re:go canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More money spent on science is always a good thing...

      Proof that Lefty does not comprehend economic scarcity, trade-offs, and marginal utility.

      And this post demonstrates that you don't understand what the word "proof" means.

    6. Re:go canada by johanw · · Score: 1

      Yes, we need more pseudo scientists like climate researchers and Lysenkoists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism).

    7. Re: go canada by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You're a partisan moron. You don't even know who I voted for, where I live, or what color my party is. All you know is that I like spending money on science and you turn it into an "us vs them" situation. Turn your brain on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re: go canada by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Thank-you, I really wanted a dictionary quoted are me this morning without any expLanation.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re: go canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does that have to do with being a lefty?

  12. Re:Brain drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The competition for 3rd place by many great countries is strong indeed.

    Well the article is pure leftist babble as always, but this line is definitely true: “But I place my bets on Canada rather than the U.S. as a place for my kids to grow up.” In the US, it's better to send the kids study abroad...

  13. Re:Brain drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well the article is pure leftist babble as always, but this line is definitely true: “But I place my bets on Canada rather than the U.S. as a place for my kids to grow up.” In the US, it's better to send the kids study abroad...

    Be careful, they may come back talking this "leftist babble". We have a way of indoctrinating them with our comfortable societies. [evil laugh]

  14. Re:Brain drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And like Canada they are way too fucking cold!!

    You're just a bunch of wusses. (Or too stupid to know how to buy winter clothes.)

  15. Re:Brain drain by DivineKnight · · Score: 2, Funny

    Some of us like not referencing our driver's licenses to remember which gender we are.

  16. figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    currently the US seems like it is run by a guy who seems like a caveman who likes to club "smart people" in the head with a club... no wonder IF smart people are fleeing from the US? Maybe same reason California wants indepence?

    1. Re: figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Money grabbing SJWs are fleeing, just like they promised to do if Trump were to win.

    2. Re: figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought money grabbing was a virtue to Trumptards.

    3. Re: figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought money grabbing was a virtue to Trumptards.

      That and pussy grabbing.

  17. Fake news *yawn* by OneAhead · · Score: 2

    Oooh, nice by-the-numbers fake news posting. Some kids pose with baseball bats for a cool picture with firm tongue-in-cheek ironic undercurrents, and suddenly you have leftists 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.

    1. Re:Fake news *yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess CNN never told you about the sjw shitshow at Evergreen College last year. Not surprising.

    2. Re:Fake news *yawn* by OneAhead · · Score: 1
      Since neither you nor the AC I originally replied to bothered to provide a valid link, you'll allow me to bring my own: https://www.seattletimes.com/s...

      Evergreen is no stranger to protests, but college President George Bridges said some students went too far in May when they interrupted faculty member Bret Weinstein’s class, and a day later pushed furniture against doors to create barricades during a takeover of the library building.

      Surely you must agree that hardly qualifies as 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.

    3. Re:Fake news *yawn* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YEAh! I put up barricades and takeover buildings everyday! It's just normal behaviour!

    4. Re:Fake news *yawn* by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      Oooh, nice by-the-numbers fake news posting. Some kids pose with baseball bats for a cool picture with firm tongue-in-cheek ironic undercurrents, and suddenly you have leftists 'patrolling the campus with baseball bats on a seek-and-destroy mission against "nazis"'.

      Yeah, c'mon, it's not like they were carrying tiki torches or something ... who could take it seriously?

    5. Re:Fake news *yawn* by OneAhead · · Score: 1
    6. Re: Fake news *yawn* by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      The only solution for America is to exterminate libturds, every one of them, and then live a happy life.

      Why don't you just skip to living a happy life? Or do the "libturds" have so much power and control over you that you can't? Why do you give the "libturds" such power? Why do you let them interfere with you living a happy life?

      Trust me, if you exterminated all the "libturds" you would just find someone else to blame for your problems. The Right is all about personal responsibility and bootstrappiness, and then turns right around blames Mexicans for taking their jobs, and Liberals (sorry, that should have been "libturds") for being Liberals. How much personal responsibility does it take for you to blame other people for you shitty life? Come on, act like the rugged individual that you are!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  18. Won't turn out as they think it will by Sqreater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hire a malcontent, get a malcontent.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Won't turn out as they think it will by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That makes no sense if the thing they are malcontent about is removed. Why would they remain unhappy when they get to move to a better country and earn loads of money?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Won't turn out as they think it will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nope. I used to be malcontent where I was working. After leaving, I am very happy. My motivation is higher than anybody else here. Malcontentment is not a permanent state, everything is about context.

      Do not underestimate the people that are brave enough to take radical decision in their life. Be suspicious of the malcontent people who are unable to take the right decision.

    3. Re:Won't turn out as they think it will by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Why would they remain unhappy when they get to move to a better country and earn loads of money?

      Because it appeases the ego of people who think Trump isn't that bad to imagine that there are never any bad consequences to anything that Trump does and that anybody who dislikes him for any reason is therefore unreasonably and perennially discontent?

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    4. Re:Won't turn out as they think it will by hazardPPP · · Score: 1

      Hire a malcontent, get a malcontent.

      By this logic, advanced rich countries like the US and Canada should accept no immigrants at all, because by definition, they are all malcontents. They obviously weren't happy with the country they lived in previously, otherwise they would not immigrate.

      It's funny how rich countries are all to happy to accept smart, skilled, educated, hard-working immigrants and even like the boast about it ("the best people in the world come here!") but then they bitch when they leave. These people obviously look out for themselves and their families first (nothing wrong with that, btw). If they already ditched Country A for Country B for that reason, they'll ditch Country B for Country C if they can, too.

    5. Re:Won't turn out as they think it will by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the USA based on immigration of malcontents?

  19. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the US, Trump pulled off a Brain Fart.

  20. It's called "competition." by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Now that US colleges are rolling in an unprecedented flood of money, why aren't they using more of it to make joining the faculty a better deal?

    1. Re:It's called "competition." by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Now that US colleges are rolling in an unprecedented flood of money, why aren't they using more of it to make joining the faculty a better deal?

      Because that would cut into the pay raises for the administrators and prevent them from spending more money on "campus life" and improvement projects to bring in more students/charge higher tuition so that the school can pay administrators more and spend more money on "improving" the campus. What, you thought college in the US was about teaching and learning?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:It's called "competition." by Frederic54 · · Score: 2

      US colleges prefer to build stadiums and pay coaches millions of $$$. Science? LOL!

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    3. Re:It's called "competition." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Can confirm. I graduated from a small engineering school - Worcester Polytechnic Institute. New president back around 2000 came in, purchased large gyms and sports buildings larger than all our academic buildings. Also built a campus center that rivals our library. Meanwhile all the top faculty are leaving in droves and ratings plummet to the point it's now a no-name school. Very depressing from the viewpoint of an alumni. Fortunately I'm old enough that ties to schools aren't important, but damned if they are ever getting any (more) of my money.

    4. Re:It's called "competition." by johanw · · Score: 1

      I thought it was about playing some stupid games like baseball or basketball because it allows even nlggers to graduate in something.

  21. Proud Canadian by dskoll · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would never leave Canada to live in the US. And given how shitty our weather is, that speaks volumes...

    1. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering how long and harsh our winters are, you'd think Canadians would have nothing bad to say about our short but sweet July-Aug summer, but instead we get two months when half of all Canadians turn into drama-queens that complain and scream in agony how the air is hot as lava and they are being burned alive anytime the temperature in summer gets above 20C(70F).

    2. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

    3. Re:Proud Canadian by Shotgun · · Score: 2

      actually, it doesn't speak to much of anything. Most people prefer to live where they were born.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    4. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually, it doesn't speak to much of anything. Most people prefer to live where they were born.

      How much exactly do you know about Canada? That it is up north?

    5. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bury me all you want. Truth hurts.

    6. Re:Proud Canadian by A5un · · Score: 1

      You're missing out.
      I moved down to Bay area and easily double my pay, weather is great, politics are entertaining and watching SJWs lose their mind is a plus.
      But good for Canada, eh? Keep advancing the science, for peoplekind!

    7. Re:Proud Canadian by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I was not born in Canada. I emigrated from by birth country to Canada.

    8. Re:Proud Canadian by dskoll · · Score: 1

      I prefer longer life expectancy. Lower infant mortality rates. A higher ranking on the Press Freedom Index. A higher ranking on the World Happiness Index. Free health care. (And by the way, all levels of government in Canada spend much less per capita on health care than all levels of government in the US and you still have shittier access.) HDI roughly equivalent to the US.

      And tolerant people who don't resort to calling those with whom they disagree SJWs.

      And a functional system of government.

      And free and fair elections sans voting machines.

    9. Re:Proud Canadian by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Oh, and also... how affordable is housing in the Bay area, again?

    10. Re:Proud Canadian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the things you prefer?

    11. Re:Proud Canadian by A5un · · Score: 2

      Housing cost is about twice the cost in Vancouver, which is on par with the increase in pay.
      As for healthcare, it's a moot point since almost all workers are covered by their employer. Another interesting anecdote, I met a retired physician from Manitoba that moved to Portland in the 90's. He worked in both Manitoba's provincial health system and in Kaiser Permanente in Oregon. He told me in no uncertain term that Kaiser's quality of care is far superior to Manitoba's.
      I believe the intolerants are now almost exclusively on SJW's side, with high profile cases to proof it from Jordan Peterson, Lindsay Shepherd to Gad Saad. The scary part is the intolerance has state backing in Canada with the soy boy in-chief.

  22. They got Jordan Peterson by Subm · · Score: 4, Informative

    They got Jordan Peterson too, from Harvard, though he's from Canada and he went there 20 years ago.

    1. Re:They got Jordan Peterson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Granted, he's a net negative on the total Canadian IQ, but his fundamental misunderstanding of what he's talking about is entertaining to the rest of us at least.

    2. Re:They got Jordan Peterson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys want him back? He's a fucking embarrassment.
      Now go clean your room bucko!

  23. So, in other words by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    It's the great brain robbery?

    1. Re:So, in other words by tbannist · · Score: 1

      Indeed, it is.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    2. Re:So, in other words by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      The summary chose someone that "worked on fake news" as the lead. If that is the best they have to show for "greatness", well...umm...

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    3. Re:So, in other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ivan, you are retarded! Go join the real army if you can, even the Russian army is better than your cubicle farm of sickly sticky faggoty keyboard jockies.

  24. History Repeats... by west · · Score: 3, Informative

    In the 80's, several of my best Physics and CS professors were ex-Americans who had fled the draft for the Vietname war in the 60's.

    Canada was all the better for it.

    However, in the interest of fairness, it should be noted that there's a constant brain drain (rather slower of late) from Canada to the US of talented individuals seeking the greater opportunities that a country as large as the US can offer. This is more of a small flow of academics in the other direction rather than a huge reversal in the regular brain drain to the US.

    1. Re:History Repeats... by argStyopa · · Score: 4, Funny

      Phht. You really are spoiling the anti-Trump virtue-signaling of this "news" post.

      --
      -Styopa
    2. Re:History Repeats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many doctors (medical doctor) leave for the US once their study are completed here in the cheap to much cheaper education system (price of study depends on province). A quick google found an old article from 2003 saying that for a single university (mcgill) the number was as high as 60%.

      Of course salary are much higher so that is simple economics.

      Though some comes back after a while, they must get tired of gun shot wounds ;-)

    3. Re:History Repeats... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phht. You really are spoiling the anti-Trump virtue-signaling of this "news" post.

      Genuinely curious... Why do you still support Trump? What is he doing that makes you want to re-elect him?

    4. Re:History Repeats... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I didn't vote for him? What makes you think I did?

      Or are you one of those "with us or against us" people?

      Oh no, wait, that's the other Republican president you criticized for such simple-mindedness...

      No, LOL, in serious answer to your question I thought Republicans were fucking nutballs for electing him...but the last 17+ months of frothing righteous zealot-like irrationality from the Left has at least made me realize his election has had comic value.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:History Repeats... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Nobody was a nutball for voting for Trump. Nobody with any sense had any other choice. Certainly couldn't vote for the despot Hillary. Imagine if that nut ball was elected. We'd be at war for sure, probably a civil war. Maybe even a coup and she wouldn't come out of that very well. She's STILL whining about it. I'm sure she's blamed you for her loss and disparaged you for it. You're just a fuckhead, shithead because she lost. Just ask her, I'm sure she'll tell you that.

      There wasn't enough lipstick in the world for that pig. They made sure she ran against the least likely guy to win - Trump and he still won.

      We have what we have. Make the best of it. Clean out the swamp because there is a hell of a swamp down there.

    6. Re:History Repeats... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Sad to say, but I don't think anyone has the chutzpah to clean out that swamp - that's why the US is so at-risk for Caesarism. If someone a) pretty, b) smart, c) telegenic comes along they have a very tempting route to say "it's a terrible mess; that's why you need to give me all this power to fix it..." THEY MAY EVEN BE GENUINE in their intent; the problem is one of horses and barn doors. The *next* one on that throne (because that's effectively what it will be) will almost guaranteed NOT be a good, decent person.

      The only thing saving us now is that the Establishments of both Left and Right would *never* let someone up through the process who has the slightest ability to go off script, or to shake their leash. So we have only their petty jealousies and greed defending the US from a *truly* terrifying populist.

      Trump's a symptom, not the disease: people were so desperate, feeling so utterly cheated by big power, big money, big media all in collusion for decades, that they were willing to vote for a clown because at least he dared to go off-script. His opponent, HRH Hilary, was so obviously entitled, so obviously part of the problem (hello, Democrats, how hard did she have to FUCK OVER Bernie Sanders before you admit what happened? Any trace of moral high ground the Democrats *may* have held as naive idealists evaporated in 2016.) that nobody could STAND to vote for her draconic majesty.

      --
      -Styopa
    7. Re:History Repeats... by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      I wonder when DJT said - OMG, I'm really going to be POTUS! How'd I do that! Why did I do that!
      I figured that out early when it seemed clear the Dems were knocking the real Reps off and leaving DJT. I remember when the laughed at the thought of him winning. Yea, who's laughing now.

      You're right of course. I'm hoping he'll clean it up.

      Ever check out David Brock? What a nut job he is. Shows what kind of trouble just one guy can do.

    8. Re:History Repeats... by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      I'd only vaguely heard of him (frankly, I find the constant inside-the-beltway nattering tiresome) but when I see his wiki brief of:

      "...The Nation has described Brock as a "conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder",[7] while National Review has called him a "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin",[8] and Politico has profiled him as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader".[6]..."

      Damn, that's a fantastic writeup. Everyone hates him, which is brilliant. (Don't get me wrong, he sounds like a hateable PERSON but as an entity in that ecosystem he's clearly Darwin's golden child).

      I fully agree that DJT had only self-promotion on his mind when entering the race and that his winning the nomination had to be a "holy shit" moment ...as much as his personality is capable of self-reflection or self-doubt, that is. So maybe not....

      --
      -Styopa
  25. Jury is still out. by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Under Trump, the economy is booming. Under Dubya, we squandered trillions on stupid counter-productive wars, and the economy imploded.

    Dubya was a well-meaning but simple man who was lead astray by some truly evil men (Rumsfeld & Cheney). Trump is evil and stupid but most of all egocentric, which has thus far mostly prevented him from getting the assistance he needs to accomplish very much.

    We're only 17 months into the Trump era. At this point in Dubya's reign he hadn't even invaded Iraq yet. Spanky's trade war with China is already slowing the economy. If we make it to 2020 (or God forbid 2024) without invading both Iran and North Korea, THEN I'll agree that he's a better president than Dubya (though still not a better person).

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re: Jury is still out. by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      Dubya was a well-meaning but simple man...

      Read all about the Bush family and the history of Skull & Bones, I see...

      I kid, I kid; you're a naive schmuck and you'd do well to do more thinking and less typing.

    2. Re:Jury is still out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you Comboman for your wonderful insight! Please submit your University Diploma is Psychology and copy of your practice license to verify your comment as not "shit you pulled out of your ass" when diagnosing someone you never met over the internet.

      Also, stop eating Tide-pods, they are bad m'kay?

    3. Re:Jury is still out. by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      Dubya was a well-meaning but simple man who was lead astray by some truly evil men (Rumsfeld & Cheney).

      And who picked Rumsfeld & Cheney? Conclusion seems to contradict the premise.

    4. Re:Jury is still out. by will_die · · Score: 1

      So that is the new meme that the deranged are using now. Before the election it was "Trump will start world war 3 in his first 30 days".
      then it was "Trump will start bombing all these countries with nuclear weapons." Has he even ordered the attacking of the same number of countries obama did?
      So now it is "Trump will invade North Korea and Iran"

      Yet they keep refusing to take my bets.

    5. Re:Jury is still out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And who picked Rumsfeld & Cheney?

      Daddy.

    6. Re:Jury is still out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off ivan

    7. Re:Jury is still out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good one

  26. Good by mfh · · Score: 1

    When we get our army of AI soldiers, we'll remember who our friends were. (and weren't)

    - Love Canada

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  27. Re:Brain drain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Head-hunting based on academic merit is not racist - even if none from Africa fits the bill.

  28. Well Trudeau did want to Advance our Tech. by foxalopex · · Score: 0

    Well I can't say I'm hugely surprised. Our Prime Minister (Justin Trudeau) did say he wanted to advance Canada's Technologies so we would stop just selling raw resources away but instead switched to more lucrative and better paying goods.

  29. Brexit != Democracy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But, if you are a true believer in democracy . . . it should be right of UK voters to decide to kick out foreigners . . . correct . . . ?

    If you are a true believer in democracy then you should have a lot of trouble with the Brexit vote. Several million British citizens living outside the UK, many inside the rest of the EU, were denied the right to vote in the referendum. It is extremely likely that many of them would have voted to remain, especially those in the EU!

    There is no doubt that this exclusion was legal. But you cannot exclude several million of your adult citizens from voting on an issue which directly affects them and then pretend that the result is democratic. As someone who has lived in Europe working at the CERN particle physics lab I always felt of myself as an EU citizen first and foremost and this is now being stripped away from me without my having any vote.

    Fortunately, I had already moved to Canada before it was fashionable and I have now done my own personal Brexit and am a proud, new Canadian citizen. However, it is still sad to see the country you grew up in having names that are becoming increasingly ironic: "Great" Britain and the "United" Kingdom.

    1. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you are a true believer in democracy then you should have a lot of trouble with the Brexit vote. Several million British citizens living outside the UK, many inside the rest of the EU, were denied the right to vote in the referendum. It is extremely likely that many of them would have voted to remain, especially those in the EU!

      So what you expect is to have the right to have input into British politics without having to live with the consequences of those decision.

      It's the people still living in Britain that will have to live with the consequences. I'd say you were quite rightly denied the vote in this case. There's more to citizenship than holding a passport.

    2. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So what you expect is to have the right to have input into British politics without having to live with the consequences of those decision. It's the people still living in Britain that will have to live with the consequences.

      If citizens in the UK were the only ones affected by this decision you would definitely have a very valid point and this why I've never really complained before about not being allowed to vote in general elections despite the fact that most countries do not disenfranchize citizens abroad. However, this decision affects every British citizen. Indeed the citizens most affected are those living in the rest of the EU and yet they were still excluded. This vote will result in EU citizenship being stripped from every British citizen. How can you possibly say that this does not hugely impact all of us?

    3. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      They should've fucking moved back to the UK if they wanted to vote.

      To be omitted from the electoral register they'd have had to be living outside the UK for so fucking long they qualify for citizenship of whichever country they've chosen to live in anyway.

    4. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVy7faNKEtM Fascinating Aïda's post-Brexit song - So Sorry Scotland

    5. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, they had been moving between countries every few years while still working for a UK company or university. In such a case they would not qulifiy for citizenship anywhere else. Although with friendly, understanding attitudes like yours it is hard to see why anyone would ever want to leave the UK to work in another country.

    6. Re:Brexit != Democracy by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The country's full, the more people I can piss off and make move out the better.

      20 million would be a nice target.

  30. Brain Heist by Gornkleschnitzer · · Score: 1

    I've heard of brain heists before. The one that sticks in my mind is the one that resulted in the acquisition of Abby Normal's brain.

  31. No bubble by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The worst thing Trump could do is put the economy into a Clinton-like bubble. A bubble economy looks good for a few years (e.g. the mid-90's), but there is always a long and painful crash afterward. It took the world roughly fifteen years to recover from the crashes following the twin bubbles Clinton started (stock market and real estate).

    Tariffs are just a thinly disguised tax increase designed to prevent the economy from getting overheated.

    1. Re: No bubble by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pray tell, how was it Clinton's fault we had a dot com bubble?

      TLDR: Democrats bad. Republicans good.

  32. it's just more greed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as in, rich people trying to get richer by buying success instead of working for it

  33. Can I hate, too? Please? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Yay! A truimph validating hatred of Trump by bribing scientists with taxpayer dollars for $350k to $1M a year, minimum 7 years!

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  34. Canada, aggressive? by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 1

    Two words that rarely appear in close proximity.

  35. Re: Brain drain by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Canada is economist.

  36. Another atack to people for voting "wrong" by rotovator · · Score: 2

    Brexit was on of the few victories of the democracy vs the powers who control everything (elections included). Now, they are takin revenge at any cost, any moment any way, This is just another maneouver to hit britain for chosing against New World Order.
    Americans, I'd be worried, even if not voted for Trump, seeing how media, social networks and corporations are trying to reverse the election outcome. Democracy is fine, as long as you vote for THEIR candidate, Even if his (or her in this case) plan is to destroy the society.

  37. Not a heist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They paid good Canadian money for those brains. Which is slightly less good than American money, but close enough.

  38. Surefire Sign of Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use of the word "cuck". Never fails, anyone who uses this "word", which isn't even a word, is guaranteed to be a moron, an ignoramus, or worse.

    1. Re:Surefire Sign of Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're also guaranteed to be right.

    2. Re:Surefire Sign of Stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Cuck" isn't a word just like "bossy" isn't.

      Oh wait.

  39. Science is now Religion by huckamania · · Score: 1

    Maybe you should spend some time looking back at the last ten years of bad science - faked studies, meta-studies, multi-variate models with dancing elephants, biases cooked into the methodology, pal-review, suing other researchers because they published something that dared to disagree and withholding/losing data.

    Just like every other human endeavor, there are good and bad, capable and incompetent, sane and psychotic people involved. Please don't build a church around science.

    1. Re:Science is now Religion by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      How would we know all that without science?

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  40. Nice article but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some people won't stop talking about Trump. It's boring and nobody wants to hear a nobody talk about politics. Or religion. Or money. Just shut the fuck up already.

  41. "Sinecures"? by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...ultra-attractive sinecures...

    That word...I do not think it means what you think it means.

    Providing stable, long-term funding so that established, high-profile researchers can bring their projects and research programs to Canada doesn't really look like a sinecure; they're not getting paid to do nothing. The $350,000 or $1 million per year funding for these positions isn't handed over as a lavish salary; it's support to allow researchers to hire staff, buy equipment, and maintain their labs. It's a fairly long-term arrangement as these things go - the NIH's R01 grants contemplate up to 5 years, and many sources of money are 3 or fewer years, or one-offs - but it's not ludicrous.

    --
    ~Idarubicin
  42. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure when Canada's white majority is gone, and 50% of the country is Chinese, it will be a wonderful place to live. Just like China.

    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already happening. You can drive for miles in Vancouver and only see signs in chinese. The housing market is wacked. Millions of dollars in $20 bills show up in casinos (government looks the other way). Drivers can't drive. Yup, it's already china.

  43. Very unhappy indeed by Solandri · · Score: 1

    seven-year grants of either $350,000 a year or $1 million a year. It's part of a campaign by numerous countries to attract scholars unhappy with Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and other political trends, sweetened with unusually generous research conditions.

    So unhappy they need a $350k-$1 million per year incentive to move.

    1. Re:Very unhappy indeed by j-beda · · Score: 1

      I think the funds are not salary, but rather research funding. It gets used to pay for equipment, hire staff, and do academic stuff. Similar "Canada Research Chairs" have been given out over the past few years - maybe even decades.

      Oh, the CRC system has been in place since 2000 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  44. Also a large drop in grad students from overseas by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 0

    The U.S. has been damaged by the 2016 election and will suffer economically for decades. It may never really recover.

    It looks like we are on the path to a full blown smoot-hawley Great Depression trade war. Except- it looks like it will be the U.S. against the entire world this time. Everyone else will simply route around the U.S. - leaving the U.S. in a weaker position even after it stops this nonsense.

    It's just a fact that labor costs in India and China are much lower than in the U.S. And automated labor costs are even lower than in India and China (tho land is still much more expensive in the U.S. so the cost of doing business will remain mildly higher even when both automate).

    Trends in inflation won't equalize labor in China until at least 2045 and in India until at least 2055.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  45. Dual citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Many people have told me they are jealous of my Canadian passport, often referred to by them as my get out of jail free card.

    1. Re:Dual citizen by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      So you get to pay taxes to two different countries?
      I know, you're an AC...

  46. Take it with a grain of salt by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I mean it's in Canadian dollars after all...

  47. Canada, eh by jbr439 · · Score: 1

    Well, I, for one, blame Canada.

  48. Abby's Brain by neoRUR · · Score: 1

    You mean they took Abby's Brain.. Abby Normal's Brain?

    1. Re:Abby's Brain by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Judging from Tredeau, they sure are abnormal. Guy's fucking nuts. They're into thought police. No sensible scientist would dare go there. It's just like 1930s Germany with fascism. Complete with turning children against their parents, gun control, gestapo tactics even senseless politically correct police that can really put you in jail. I presume the gas chambers will be installed soon up there, France, England, Germany.

      See the news article where they put a guy in jail for teaching a dog the nazi salute? Something the real nazis didn't put a guy in jail for back in the 1930s, so the English are more fascists than the real nazis.

  49. Not a good idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who is "unhappy with Brexit" is an idiot, and shouldn't be allowed to immigrate to Canada.

  50. Integration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With regards to other comments about integration and how the U.K. is so good at it: Rotherham, Telford, Oxford, and an estimated 1,000,000 UK girls say otherwise.

  51. The headline seems unrelated to the article itself by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who else thought this was going to be a news article about Canadians stealing a brain (or more than one!), either from a morgue or from a scientific institution? Instead, it's just a news article about a scientist moving to Canada.

    Yay for Canada, though, I suppose.

  52. Re:Also a large drop in grad students from oversea by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    The U.S. has been damaged by the 2016 election and will suffer economically for decades. It may never really recover.

    It looks like we are on the path to a full blown smoot-hawley Great Depression trade war. Except- it looks like it will be the U.S. against the entire world this time. Everyone else will simply route around the U.S. - leaving the U.S. in a weaker position even after it stops this nonsense.

    It's just a fact that labor costs in India and China are much lower than in the U.S. And automated labor costs are even lower than in India and China (tho land is still much more expensive in the U.S. so the cost of doing business will remain mildly higher even when both automate).

    Trends in inflation won't equalize labor in China until at least 2045 and in India until at least 2055.
    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  53. And Again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a proud know-nothing fails to define exactly why virtue is a bad thing. Continuing to use the term "virtue-signaling" to mean "something bad" displays your ignorance and that is truly "something bad".

    So please, continue!