Trump victory: Good or bad for liberals ?

[IndependentProfessor]

[exploited]

I'm glad you admit you were wrong about the impact of divided government on legislation, in both quality and quantity. In re: the economy...

You haven't presented any evidence that a divided government is better for the economy. Unless you count something like this as evidence: "In 1985, exploited was born. The same year, the Montreal Canadians won the Stanley Cup. Therefore exploited caused the Montreal Canadians to win the Stanley Cup."

Please stop just ignoring when your points are disproved. It's frustrating and unproductive.

[IndependentProfessor]

[exploited]

Lol what.

[John Galt]

where did you get that. is there more. please tell me there's more

[exploited]

A Harvard student put these together awhile ago because he got sick of grown adults like Prof failing to understand even the basics of what statistical correlation and causation mean.

http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

My favourite is number of films Nicholas Cage stars in with number of people who drown in their pool.

[Winchester]

[IndependentProfessor]

If you can't understand that business thrive when they can predict the future with some degree of certainty, and that those levels of certainty go way down when one party has control of everything because they want to change so much, then I don't know what I can do for you. Divided governments don't change things very quickly, which allows businesses (and the economy) to thrive.

BTW, thanks for totally ignoring my challenge that you prove your theory.

[exploited]

*Makes assertion, fails to provide any evidence, gets mad that others aren't doing his work for him*

Are you a child or an adult? Either show your work or drop the assertion. It's that easy. Providing two dozen flawed, ignorant studies that don't prove causation doesn't prove your point.

[IndependentProfessor]