**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

My main prediction: http://www.270towin.com/maps/gGL4O

There is some potential of a total overhaul that includes New Jersey going red. I don't really any predictions for what the EV map would look like then.

[wufwugy]

I have very little way of assessing how Oregon will go, but if it's a landslide, Oregon may flip like Indiana did in the other direction in 2008.

[Poopadoop]

looked like Hilary had been on the gin today from our news coverage. Maybe at the debates Trump should ask her if she'd prefer a chair to sit on.

She just lost the election with that stumble. Poor old cripple.

[wufwugy]

The media will certainly say that she lost it because of her attacking of Trump supporters or her health, but we know better. She lost it a long time ago.

[wufwugy]

Gangster Scott Adams: http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1502649...-probably-over

[wufwugy]

Oh wow I hadn't seen this. It is ooooooooooooooooover.

[wufwugy]

The only hope is making it Biden/Kaine before the debate.

[OngBonga]

I would literally vote for a warm pile of shit before Trump.

Odds are that it'll be a cold pile of shit by the time election comes.

[Poopadoop]

Wow she is not right.

[Poopadoop]

This guy makes some pretty interesting arguments for HRC having Parkinson's.

[OngBonga]

An anonymous doctor has also claimed vascular dementia. She definitely ain't right. I can't see her making it. She might not die, but it's becoming clear to a lot of people that she's not fit for office. I'll be surprised if your election goes ahead.

[Poopadoop]

Whatever exactly is wrong with her, what surprises me (and maybe it shouldn't) is the extent to which the Democrats seems intent on covering it up, like somehow they'll just do a weekend at Bernie's thing with a presidential candidate and no-one will suss it out.

And the media seems intent on going along with that story too. 'oh yea, a touch of pneumonia.' God, they must really hate Trump lol.

[wufwugy]

Whatever exactly is wrong with her, what surprises me (and maybe it shouldn't) is the extent to which the Democrats seems intent on covering it up, like somehow they'll just do a weekend at Bernie's thing with a presidential candidate and no-one will suss it out.

And the media seems intent on going along with that story too. 'oh yea, a touch of pneumonia.' God, they must really hate Trump lol.

American media is almost entirely Democrat. Probably the two biggest reasons for this is that they identify as political leftists personally, but the less known one is that the media tries to back a winner in order to get access to that winner at a later date. The media that wasn't already hardcore Republican jumped immediately onto pushing the Clinton wagon partly because they expect Clinton to win and they want to be seen doing as much good for their presumptive nominee as possible.

We have intense, intense corruption going on. This is just 0.01% of it. Trump will tear so much of it down. It'll be glorious.

[wufwugy]

Another explanation for why our Democrat media backs Clinton so heavily is in that the owners of the companies have had deep ties with Clinton for a long time. It is even possible that they are backing her so heavily because they know that they're all going to prison if Trump wins. There is very significant reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation is chock full of treason.

[Poopadoop]

There may be something to that, and I agree the media is mainly liberal in the US. I also think the media culture in general doesn't like to speculate on sensitive issues like this one just because it is a sensitive issue. In the UK they don't make much of her health issues either (though we obv. don't care about US politics the way you do, it still gets attention).

Watch. It won't be until HC's head starts rotating 360 degrees clockwise with her eyes spinning the other direction, when the Demos have to admit there's a problem, that the media will come out and say 'ya, we suspected it all along'.

I'm not trying to make light of it, the truth is it's pretty sad to watch someone go through that. I'm no big fan of HC either but I wouldn't wish that shit on anyone.

[a500lbgorilla]

Another explanation for why our Democrat media backs Clinton so heavily is in that the owners of the companies have had deep ties with Clinton for a long time. It is even possible that they are backing her so heavily because they know that they're all going to prison if Trump wins. There is very significant reason to believe that the Clinton Foundation is chock full of treason.

http://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk

http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?arti...articleId=2936

[wufwugy]

http://gfs.eiu.com/Archive.aspx?archiveType=globalrisk

http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?arti...articleId=2936

I've been discovering that one of the biggest problems with social sciences is that researchers have poor qualitative skills regarding the non-mathematics, non-statistics, non-econometrics elements. This is a reason why there is such high confidence is wrong things. Researchers don't have the qualitative skills to step back from the statistics and explain why their parameters are not representative of the current real-time situation.

[wufwugy]

In fact this may be the deciding factor for why I am deciding to not pursue a doctorate in economics. Econometricians are taking over the field at the expense of philosophy of economics. I was astounded to see that most (all?) graduate schools don't care if you have a background in economics; instead they want graduates from quantitative sciences. No wonder economies are in such bad shape. There is an unfilled hole of economists who actually understand economics on a philosophical level.

[wufwugy]

Graduate schools want people who are good with data, not people who can explain what the law of demand and the almost-a-law of supply tell us about the world. And this is a big reason why we have so many unforced errors in economies.

[Poopadoop]

Is any of that actually meant to be taken seriously though? I mean are people basing anything they do on these numbers? Or is just there for entertainment value?

It's just all so subjective. It's like saying Beyonce is a better singer than Rihanna, because I rate her a 9/10 and Rihanna only gets an 8. They're just pulling numbers out of their asses afaik.

[wufwugy]

Is any of that actually meant to be taken seriously though? I mean are people basing anything they do on these numbers?

Oh absolutely. Politicians live and die by the polls.

One example: Clinton spent quite a long time out of the spotlight. Since the conventions, Trump was campaigning constantly while Clinton barely campaigned. This went on for weeks. Only within the last week has Clinton come out of the woodworks and start campaigning. There is one explanation that fits this behavior and it's also the explanation that political consultants state is common practice. The conventional wisdom is for a frontrunner to "do no harm", meaning to not spend much time in the spotlight since that makes it more likely for mistakes like gaffs to be made. Clinton earlier believed she was the frontrunner. She believed this from the polls. She is no longer in hiding because the polls reflect that she is no longer the frontrunner.

On a side note, this helps to get back to my point of the social sciences have a deficiency of qualitative experts. The "do no harm" strategy of a frontrunner is terrible. Any person who advises it should be fired, but it is by far the most common advice given to the situation. A much better assessment is that the risk of a gaff is too low to make the big mistake of not campaigning as the frontrunner and inevitably letting the opponent close in on you. It should be noted here that a true qualitative expert on these things, Trump, has a political strategy that prefers to campaign as the frontrunner. He and his camp believes that once he hits the clear poll lead, he will not lose it, because running as a leader is so much more fruitful than running from behind. He did this in the primaries. This is why he does things like talk up big time polls that put him in the lead and completely ignores ones that don't. After he becomes the optical frontrunner, he'll campaign hard as the inevitable winning winner that he is, and millions will be persuaded to back that winning winner because everybody likes backing winning winners because it makes them feel like winning winners too.

[Poopadoop]

Not sure we're talking about the same thing. Obviously people take polls seriously, whether they should or not. I was referring to the Trump risk thing a500lbgorilla posted. What I'm saying is Trump risk is rated as 12, but how is that meaningful in any way? Are you supposed to use this 'information' somehow?

[wufwugy]

I'm giving it ~20% chance that Trump wins in a 1984-esque landslide, taking New York and New Jersey and Illinois and all sorts of crazy shit.

[Savy]

Graduate schools want people who are good with data, not people who can explain what the law of demand and the almost-a-law of supply tell us about the world. And this is a big reason why we have so many unforced errors in economies.

Lol, they want people who are good at maths because all the other stuff is simple reading.

That doesn't imply that they don't want the other stuff it's just trivial in comparison.

Also having spent some time in close proximity to people studying phds in social sciences I can tell you that they certainly aren't mathematicians. The reason for what you talk about (see bold) is actually due to a misunderstanding of the statistical models which they are applying to their research and the implications of this. What happens if they have some data and they need to sort it out so they find a tool to do this without really understanding what they're doing.

You'd be amazed at how many ways you can rank data and what those rankings are and aren't telling you.

[OngBonga]

In the UK they don't make much of her health issues either

Indeed. The health of the frontrunner for the American Presdency is clearly not as important as which channel gets the Great British Bake Off, or how hot it's going to be.

[Savy]

To put it another way you to be a good economist you need to be able to do economics which includes a lot of maths.

I can do maths don't know much about economics -> not a good economist.
You like economics but can't do maths -> not a good economist.

I'd have much less trouble reading up on all the economics than you seemingly have with maths*. So if a university is going ohh we need someone who should we pick it's right to go for the person who can do the maths because the other part of learning is much easier, even though you clearly know much more about the topic than I do. That being said there are lots of people who can do maths and economics so in reality those are the people who are applying and getting picked.

*This coming from someone who thinks you are more than capable of doing it all you just don't want to.

Indeed. The health of the frontrunner for the American Presdency is clearly not as important as which channel gets the Great British Bake Off, or how hot it's going to be.

I don't get what all the fuss is about though & why they think what's wrong with her is some sort of cover up story. Seems reasonable.

[OngBonga]

I don't get what all the fuss is about though & why they think what's wrong with her is some sort of cover up story. Seems reasonable.

If she's dying, then why the hell is she running for president? There's no room for sympathy when we're talking about the biggest job in the world. A candidate should be in good enough health to lead the nation for the expected term. If she's dying, then by saying she has pneumonia they are covering it up to get her elected. Why? Fuck knows. Maybe so whoever is appointed VP gets the job without facing the vote.

[OngBonga]

Don't get me wrong, I realise that it's possible she really does only have pneumonia and her twitches and weirdness is down to the fact that she's batshit.

But there seems to be a lot of people concerned, this isn't conpiracy nut-job territory, and it certainly appears to be affecting her chances of winning.

Note she had a serious blood clot in the recent past, which could trigger the kind of diseases being talked about.

[Savy]

Ill health should affect her chances of winning and no doubt is. She's a bit ill, tried pushing herself too much rather than saying she was a bit ill and got a bit faint.

[OngBonga]

Ill health should affect her chances of winning and no doubt is. She's a bit ill, tried pushing herself too much rather than saying she was a bit ill and got a bit faint.

Ill health should only affect her chances if it's serious ill health. Pneumonia is pretty serious, but it's something that can be recovered from relatively quickly, so I wouldn't say her claimed illnesses render her as an inappropriate candidate. But if she's dying, or losing her sanity, it's totally different.

If they know she's not fit for office, why are they pushing for it anyway, instead of calling off the election while they replace her with a more suitable candidate?

[Poopadoop]

Those blue lens glasses Hillary was wearing on 9/11 are used for treating people with Parkinson's or seizures. She's seriously unwell imo.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15329083
A novel nonpharmacologic treatment for photosensitive ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
1. Epilepsia. 2004 Sep;45(9):1158-62. A novel nonpharmacologic treatment for photosensitive epilepsy: a report of three patients tested with blue cross-polarized glasses.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25685120
Chiropractic management of an 81-year-old man with ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
1. J Chiropr Med. 2014 Jun;13(2):116-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2014.06.002. Chiropractic management of an 81-year-old man with Parkinson disease signs and symptoms.

edit: And ya, it isn't too far -fetched to see why they're covering it up. Because they want to be in power and they think they have a better chance if they weekend at Bernie's her around than if they had someone else running I guess.

[Poopadoop]

...because it's more important to them to win the election than it is to have someone competent who can actually do the job. Maybe they think 'first we'll get in and then we'll sort out who's really in charge'.

You could argue the same thing about GWB's second term: he was by that time nearly incapable of producing a complete sentence, almost certainly suffering from pre-senile dementia, yet did they replace him? No, because they knew an incumbent has the best chance.

Same thing with Reagan, he was already showing signs of dementia when re-election time came around, and obviously wasn't going to get better in the next four years as he got four years older. But they kept him because he was both an incumbent and very popular and they thought he'd win.

[Poopadoop]

It also seems fishy how they first said she was dehydrated, then only later said it was pneumonia. It's as if they decided they couldn't sell it as dehydration, and so they changed it to pneumonia which caused dehydration which caused her to 'nearly' collapse (and if you watch the end of that video she has 'definitely' collapsed, her head drops down, her feet aren't on the ground anymore, and they are literally dragging her into the van like a bag of potatoes).

No way they are telling us everything.

[JKDS]

She probably has aids and cancer too. And she's being piloted by a tiny green alien.

People can get sick without being terminally ill.

[OngBonga]

She probably has aids and cancer too. And she's being piloted by a tiny green alien.

People can get sick without being terminally ill.

I love this tendency to take something reasonable and turn it into something ridiculous in an effort to make the reasonable assumption look ridiculous.

You and savy are excellent at this, poop not bad either.

[OngBonga]

People can get sick without being terminally ill.

People can be unfit for office while not dying.

[Poopadoop]

She probably has aids and cancer too. And she's being piloted by a tiny green alien.

People can get sick without being terminally ill.

Are your beliefs perhaps being influenced by your desire to see her win?

She may not be on the verge of dying, but the question is whether she's fit for office. I would not want someone with a serious brain disorder running my country even if they could live for another twenty years. At the very least it suggests she's not going to be in full control of her faculties at all times.

[Poopadoop]

You and savy are excellent at this, poop not bad either.

Stop it, you're making me blush.

[Poopadoop]

I do have to give them credit though. They did manage to match her outfit to the treating someone with brain damage shades really well.

[OngBonga]

Apperently, the woman who emerged from her daughter's house wasn't her, it was a phoney double.

The image I've seen doesn't look like her when compared next to her, but how hard is it to distort a photo these days?

Still, it really wouldn't surprise me.

[Poopadoop]

That would be so funny if it turned out to be true. Probably easier to hire a body double than to have someone hold her up while another person waves her arm for her.

[OngBonga]

The supposed double has even been named as Teresa Barnwell. She makes an income as a Clinton impersonator.

How much truth there is to this is obviously questionable, but it's been picked up by the tabloids here.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/177409...-911-collapse/

[Poopadoop]

That woman does look a lot like her. I've also looked at the videos and I can't see any definitive proof. Damn well done Democrats!

[Savy]

Why would they need a body double when they're shape shifting lizards?

[Poopadoop]

They might use a body double because they want to promote the idea that she's healthy when in fact she isn't, rather than just leave the image of her collapsing in everyone's head for a few more days while they treat her. Don't believe they would stoop so low? Think about what's at stake for them.

Interesting she hasn't been seen in public since she (or someone who looks like her) came out and waved and said how great she felt.

Really though whether or not they used a double is irrelevant. If she's so sick they are using a double then there's no way she can finish this campaign. If she's not sick, then we'll find out that too in due course.

[JKDS]

Are your beliefs perhaps being influenced by your desire to see her win?

She may not be on the verge of dying, but the question is whether she's fit for office. I would not want someone with a serious brain disorder running my country even if they could live for another twenty years. At the very least it suggests she's not going to be in full control of her faculties at all times.

Based on what? Blue sunglasses? She got sick, it happens. I'm not a hillary fanatic, but everything being said is complete speculation by armchair doctors at best

[JKDS]

Btw, this is the same as when trump got attacked for being psychotic. Maybe we have a Westwing-esk health condition cover up...or maybe she exhibited signs consistent with an old lady having pneumonia

[OngBonga]

Yeah there's one interesting aspect of this... the images showing "Hillary" waving after emerging from her daughter's have a suspicious lack of goons flanking her in case she has another episode. Contrast that to the amount of special agents near her when she was getting into the car. The woman who could be next president has just fainted, and she has no aide alongside her as she's going out into the public?

If that's her, then her head of security should be sacked on the spot.

[Poopadoop]

Based on what? Blue sunglasses? She got sick, it happens. I'm not a hillary fanatic, but everything being said is complete speculation by armchair doctors at best

I'll admit that wearing blue sunglasses on a cloudy day doesn't prove you're wearing them for Parkinson's or epilepsy, but you have to admit it doesn't seem normal either...

[Savy]

They might use a body double because they want to promote the idea that she's healthy when in fact she isn't, rather than just leave the image of her collapsing in everyone's head for a few more days while they treat her. Don't believe they would stoop so low? Think about what's at stake for them.

Interesting she hasn't been seen in public since she (or someone who looks like her) came out and waved and said how great she felt.

Really though whether or not they used a double is irrelevant. If she's so sick they are using a double then there's no way she can finish this campaign. If she's not sick, then we'll find out that too in due course.

A body double actually sounds like a stupid response that a party under stress would make the stupid decision of doing to give the appearance that she's ok but it's still incredibly unlikely.

I've already given the most realistic and understandable answer that she got a bit ill, they tried to carry on as though nothing was wrong because being ill is a weakness & as a result she over worked herself and got faint. To not think that is by far and away the most reasonable answer means that you need to look at why you want something else to be true and accept your bias in that.

[OngBonga]

Btw, this is the same as when trump got attacked for being psychotic. Maybe we have a Westwing-esk health condition cover up...or maybe she exhibited signs consistent with an old lady having pneumonia

Do you actually believe that she's ok? Is it just hope? Optimism?

[OngBonga]

A body double actually sounds like a stupid response that a party under stress would make the stupid decision of doing to give the appearance that she's ok but it's still incredibly unlikely.

Pretty sure they've done it before, so I think your assessment that it's "incredibly unlikely" is wide of the mark.

I'd say it's a coin flip.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah there's one interesting aspect of this... the images showing "Hillary" waving after emerging from her daughter's have a suspicious lack of goons flanking her in case she has another episode.

I thought that too. She's 'feeling great', no need to worry, no supporting goons watching over her, an hour and a half after collapsing and being dragged into a van?

[Poopadoop]

To not think that is by far and away the most reasonable answer means that you need to look at why you want something else to be true and accept your bias in that.

Is it not possible that what you think is reasonable is different from what another thinks is reasonable?

In fact, I would rather believe she was fine and would be the next president because I find her much less objectionable than Trump. I also prefer to consider what to me are wholly plausible scenarios because to me that's better than just thinking everyone's playing it straight during a presidential election, which to be honest I think is a bit naive.

[OngBonga]

To not think that is by far and away the most reasonable answer means that you need to look at why you want something else to be true and accept your bias in that.

Basically, this says "if you don't agree with me, then it's because of political bias". Nice.

I don't think that there is anyone here who "wants" it to be true. I certainly don't. Not that I care about if she lives or dies, it's just that I wouldn't wish terminal illness on anyone. And I have no bias here... I prefer her to be fit for office because I don't like the idea of them sneaking in someone through the VP office.

[Poopadoop]

Consider these things ImSavy:

1) you are a loyal member of a political party that is running for president. You sincerely think that having your party win the election is the best thing for you and the country. You select a candidate who you think will have the best chance of beating the other guy. I trust all of this is reasonable so far?

2) Turns out she's got some health issues. What do you do? If you replace her mid-stream then you've literally fucked your chances, because a lot of people who were sitting on the fence are going to say 'well this is their second choice, not as good as the first obviously, so I'm voting for the other guy.'

So you decide to stick it out with your chosen candidate. How do you do it? Well, obviously you're not going to come out and say 'hey our candidate is kinda sick actually, but don't worry she'll be fine'. No, you cover it up, deny, use whatever means you have to to get her elected. Because you truly believe a sick member of your party is better than a healthy member of the other, and you can't win any other way than to try to cover up the fact that she's sick. In your mind, the ends justify the means.

[Savy]

Basically, this says "if you don't agree with me, then it's because of political bias". Nice.

I don't think that there is anyone here who "wants" it to be true. I certainly don't. Not that I care about if she lives or dies, it's just that I wouldn't wish terminal illness on anyone. And I have no bias here... I prefer her to be fit for office because I don't like the idea of them sneaking in someone through the VP office.

Not political bias just bias in general. Your bias for example isn't political it's having a lust for conspiracy to be true.

[Poopadoop]

Not political bias just bias in general. Your bias for example isn't political it's having a lust for conspiracy to be true.

I don't think it's paranoid to think some people are capable of doing nearly anything to attain political power. There's certainly precedents of candidate's health issues being covered up in the past - JFK and Addison's disease springs to mind as a confirmed example if you don't buy the Bush and Reagan ones.

[JKDS]

Hillary has a transparency issue. Like Bill, she'd rather omit than speak out. Given that, are we surprised that she didn't advertise that she was sick? The only upside to advertising it would be to "draw the sting" in case something just like this happened.

Hillary is certainly power hungry. But her desire to hide everything even remotely negative doesn't necessarily mean she has something hugely negative in her closet

[OngBonga]

But her desire to hide everything even remotely negative doesn't necessarily mean she has something hugely negative in her closet

No, not necessarily. But she does though.

[OngBonga]

Not political bias just bias in general. Your bias for example isn't political it's having a lust for conspiracy to be true.

I'd actually rather be wrong about the way I view the world. I don't want it to be true that 9/11 was orchestrated by elite powers who control the world, it's better if the enemy is obvious and stoppable.

I think this is where a lot of conspiracy theorists are misunderstood. Most conspiracy theorists believe, but they don't want.

[Poopadoop]

are we surprised that she didn't advertise that she was sick?

Not at all, I would try to keep it quiet too, it's just political common sense.

The issue isn't whether she should have admitted pneumonia, it's whether she has something much more serious that they're hiding, and that can affect her ability to be a competent president.

We can discount the argument of 'oh they wouldn't lie like that' as I've already proven they have in the past. So let's look at the evidence with our own eyes and try to make sense of it the best we can.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not going to run through the entire list of episodes she's had in the last several years as it's already well documented and anyone can look it up.

To me as someone who studies the brain though, I can honestly say that if I saw any person who made the kind of exaggerated, grotesque movements she's been filmed making, who occasionally has coughing fits that go on for minutes, who has had a clot in her brain previously, who has lost consciousness on several occasions, and who is wearing glasses designed for someone with a brain disorder, I would think that person almost certainly has a serious neurological problem.

Any one of those things is a cause for suspicion, all of them in sum is just too much to ignore.

[OngBonga]

exaggerated, grotesque movements

batshit

coughing fits that go on for minutes

pneumonia

has had a clot in her brain previously

recovery

lost consciousness on several occasions

pneumonia

wearing glasses designed for someone with a brain disorder

fashion


Stop with the tin hat. Next you'll be telling us Princess Diana didn't go to the moon.

[Poopadoop]

I know you're taking the piss, but let's just examine one of those things in detail. She's surrounded by reporters and shakes her head around with her eyes bulging out and mouth open. One could argue 'she's just joking around' but have you ever seen anyone move like that as a joke? Honestly, that doesn't look just bizarre?

The other one is her at the DNC reacting to the fireworks in a grossly similar way. That's not 'batshit' and there's nothing there to joke about. That's brain dysfunction. Her brain simply can't make her body behave in a normal way in response to strong stimuli.

An analogy would be someone who has an epileptic seizure whenever they're exposed to strobe lighting. The brain is taking in the stimuli and having an abnormal reaction to it.

[Poopadoop]

Ok now, how about those coughing fits, how does that equate to brain damage? The brain controls the body, including the parts that seem to work automatically such as the muscles involved in swallowing. When motor parts of your brain are damaged, it can sometimes fail to send the correct signals to the throat to swallow the person's spit and instead it inhales the spit. Then you cough for several minutes because your lungs don't like having liquid in them. If you ever occasionally have something go down the wrong pipe the same will happen to you. The thing is, in a healthy person it's a rare occasion. In someone with a motor disorder, it happens a lot more.

[Poopadoop]

To be perfectly honest, I was pretty much convinced just by the bizarre movements alone. The other stuff is just icing on the cake. And remember, I'm not wishing this is true cause i prefer her to Trump, and I wish it wasn't true. But to me, it's about 99.5% certain that there is something seriously wrong with her brain.

[Poopadoop]

fashion

Lol ong good one.

[wufwugy]

Lol, they want people who are good at maths because all the other stuff is simple reading.

That doesn't imply that they don't want the other stuff it's just trivial in comparison.

Also having spent some time in close proximity to people studying phds in social sciences I can tell you that they certainly aren't mathematicians. The reason for what you talk about (see bold) is actually due to a misunderstanding of the statistical models which they are applying to their research and the implications of this. What happens if they have some data and they need to sort it out so they find a tool to do this without really understanding what they're doing.

You'd be amazed at how many ways you can rank data and what those rankings are and aren't telling you.

You're right. Caveat: the other stuff is more than simple reading; it's philosophy and reason. I've given this example before, but in case it was missed, I'll give it again: my principles of micro class taught a contradiction and left it at that. That contradiction is on one hand principles of micro teaches (simplified) that freedom in markets provide the mechanics for how markets improve, yet on the other hand that when markets "need" improving, deduction of freedom (government regulation) can help. Probably somewhere between 20-33% of economists recognize this contradiction (among others), but the zeitgeist of the economics profession marginalizes it.

Other caveat: wrong philosophy of economics puts all the econometrics and all the policies economies are built on on shaky ground. The Great Depression and Great Recession and a myriad of other economic catastrophes have ultimate causes in economics policies that reflect crummy economics philosophy. An example of this is in how principles of economics classes spend a good deal of time on the utmost importance of moral hazard, yet the zeitgeist is to minimize or flat out ignore the role of moral hazard in the construction of economic catastrophes like the GD and GR.

I'm taking a money/finance econ class right now. Today the professor covered some on moral hazard. She expressed with intent how regulation is necessary because of moral hazard and didn't mention that regulation itself can cause moral hazard. After class, I asked her "can regulation cause moral hazard?" and she said yes and then explained to me how this is a controversial topic. So what we have here is a class of 20 students where only 5% of them heard something other than only the idea that the solution to moral hazard is government regulation.

The field has cognitive dissonance, and the consequences of this are dire.

[wufwugy]

To put it another way you to be a good economist you need to be able to do economics which includes a lot of maths.

I can do maths don't know much about economics -> not a good economist.
You like economics but can't do maths -> not a good economist.

I'd have much less trouble reading up on all the economics than you seemingly have with maths*. So if a university is going ohh we need someone who should we pick it's right to go for the person who can do the maths because the other part of learning is much easier, even though you clearly know much more about the topic than I do. That being said there are lots of people who can do maths and economics so in reality those are the people who are applying and getting picked.

*This coming from someone who thinks you are more than capable of doing it all you just don't want to.

I do not agree that the maths is easier than the non-maths economics. At the least, the proof is in the pudding. Our economic woes are unforced errors that originate from poor use of economics philosophy by economists.

I don't want to get bogged down in the idea that it's math vs economics or whatever, because it's not that. It's that graduate schools want people with better general data skills and do so at the expense of better economics philosophy skills.

[wufwugy]

Based on what? Blue sunglasses? She got sick, it happens. I'm not a hillary fanatic, but everything being said is complete speculation by armchair doctors at best

I commend the skepticism.

Many brain specialists have been on the record saying that she displays symptoms that align with serious conditions. There is a bunch of meat on this bone, and it is much more than just peoples' confirmation bias.

[wufwugy]

oooooooooooooh this body double thing gonna be fun.

crooked's at >80% to have petit mal seizures.

[OngBonga]

The other one is her at the DNC reacting to the fireworks in a grossly similar way.

Yeah this is the image that springs to mind when I think of her twitches. I know it's a crass analogy, but it kinda reminds me of retard kids finding something visually exciting... like wooooow. I wouldn't be alarmed if I saw someone diagnosed with downs syndrome behaving like that, but a healthy woman who had a blood clot removed from her brain a few years ago... yeah, that can't go ignored.

If it were that alone, then I could give her the benefit of the doubt, but recent events have really upped the ante.

And yes, I was taking the piss. It was fun to put my debunking hat on for a minute.

[a500lbgorilla]

Based on what? Blue sunglasses? She got sick, it happens. I'm not a hillary fanatic, but everything being said is complete speculation by armchair doctors at best

Blue sunglasses, tho.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1592030

[Poopadoop]

I think the evidence doesn't really support her being photosensitive in the way some epileptics are (e.g., seizing to a strobe light). I think it more likely her reactions come from overstimulation in general. Note in the one video she suddenly has several questions shouted to her at once - this is auditory overstimulation, not visual. In the DNC video the overstimulation is again sudden but it's both visual and auditory (fireworks, balloons).

I think on reflection it's more likely she has some more general disorder like Parkinson's and the blue glasses are for that. My opinion may vary as new evidence comes in. However you slice it up though, sadly her brain is not working as it should.