This is partly about "the political games" but also about the illogic and careless language used by the talking heads on TV. And I don't like either side of both issues!
First, the "the political games". The Facts: FBI Director Comey sent a letter to "Congress advising them that more emails were found that might involve their previous committee investigations, as he had promised to do if new information was discovered. No specific information was included, and he noted that the possibilility of misunderstanding.
The basis of concern is that Huma Abedin (wife of Anthony Weiner of sexting shame-fame) is an associate of Clinton and there MIGHT be some Clinton emails not yet discovered. She used a family laptop to send some emails to Clinton. The content has not been made public at this time is not known at this time. Nothing suggesting anything improper has been offerred.
The FBI, after reviewing all the emails on Clinton's server, has found nothing of concern and closed the investigation months ago. A very few emails with classified information were sent TO her without proper notifications. Her replies were lawful; if you don't know received information was classified, YOU are not at fault. The FBI said so.
OK. As far as I can think, if Huma sent Clinton any emails, they are on Clinton's email system and already examined by the FBI. This starts to look like the Kevin Bacon game. Can you connect anyone socially unacceptable to Clinton? LOL!
As far as I can tell now, the letter was addressed TO House Committee Chairman, all Republican of course. I will explain something about the details of Government letter-writing. There is "TO", there is "cc" (courtesy copy), and there is "bcc" (blind courtesy copy) just like on emails.
Only in Government letters, the cc and bcc is not on the original TO letter. The "TO" recipients do not know about the cc and bcc list unless they ask for a file copy of the letter. The cc list does not know about the "bcc" list unless they ask (and the originators admit to it).
So, unless things have changed (and they might have - I've been retired for10 years), the Republican Committee saw only that they had been sent the letter, the Democratic minority leaders saw they had been sent a copy of the letter to the Republican Chairmen, and only Comey and his staff know who got sent a bcc copy (bcc's are usually sent only to internal staff who need to know about such things for media questions and file-keeping.
Is that confusing enough? I spent 30 years in Government and got very used to those kinds of subtleties, LOL! It all makes sense to me! LOL!
Second, the talking heads discussions...
Everyone I heard on MSNBC and CNN got it all WRONG! Clinton mentioned the Comey letter send to the Republican Committee Chairmen. As usual, she was utterly technically correct. The letter was indeed addressed to the Republican Committee Chairmen. She said that with the same accuracy I would in discussing "TO, cc, and bcc". She understands that stuff and speaks of it accurately.
The TV talking heads did not! They said Clinton claimed the letter was sent "only" to the Republicans and casitigatd her for a deception.. The ccs were sent to the ranking Democratic Minority Leaders. But they received cc copies; they were not the original TO recipients.
Meanwhile, Clinton is saying that she would like any available information to be released ASAP, as there is noactual information in Director Comey's letter but there are suggestions. Trump, on the other hand is claiming the non-information in Comey's letter as some proof of guilt
As odd as that might seem in the real world, it matters in Government. Comey very DELIBERATELY and EXPLICITLY sent the official copies of the letter to the Republican Committee chairmen and NOT the official copies to the Democratic Ranking Members. But cc'd them to cover his ass. A true Washington wimpy asshole who needs to be removed...
Conclusion: Comey wished to try to stay out of trouble by playing it both too carefully and too ineptly. Whoever wins the Presidency, he is going to be gone for the crime of political incompetence. He can't claim it was urgent (the FBI had the information 5 weeks ago), and he can't claim any factul reason for presenting the mere statement that the FBI was investigating new information 11 days before an election.
Ex FBI officials have said there is an informal, but previously modern unbroken rule of avoiding all political statements 60 days before an election. That Comey broke that rule says a lot about his intent.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 29, 2016
Friday, October 21, 2016
US Election
Well, we are down to the final few weeks of the US Presidential election, and quite frankly, I wish it was tomorrow. Or even yesterday. I am SO tired of it I could scream!
At least it seems that the decision is no longer in doubt. We will be referring to "Madame President" for the first time ever here, Democrats will have won a 3rd consecutive term controlling the White House since 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected to a 3rd personal consecutive term, and (to steal a phrase from an previous generation) a long national nightmare will be over.
The election results will probably give nominal control of the US Senate to the Democrats by a small majority. It is possible that the House of Representatives will become Democratic , but I'm not expecting it today (but who knows what things will look like in 3 weeks)? Trump and the Republicans have the 3 weeks to make things better or worse.
If the Al Smith Foundation Dinner last night was any clue, it will get worse for the Republicans. As background, the Dinner "is an annual white fundraiser in the United States for Catholic charities supporting needy children, held at theWaldorf-Astoria hotel in New York, on the third Thursday of October. It is organized by the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation in honor of Al Smith the former New York Governor and the first Catholic US Presidential candidate. The dinner is hosted by the Archbishop of New York.
The idea is for the 2 major Presidential candidates to engage in self deprecating humor and some gentle digs at their opponent.
Trump failed at that utterly. That's not just my opinion. He received boos and several points when he just made his regular speech at a few points. Commenters said afterwards that they had never heard boos at the event before.
Apparently, Trump does not understand humor at all. He did have a few funny lines, none of which were aimed at himself, and even as delivered fell flat. I suspect several of them would have gotten laughs if delivered by a professional. Sarcasm can be funny, but not when delivered in anger.
Trumps best joke was when he mentioned 'Michelle Obama made a speech and everyone loved it. It was great. My wife, Melania, made the exact same speech and everyone gets on her case.'
The audience loved it. It is probably the best humor about plagiarism ever! But even THEN, it wasn't aimed at himself.
The crowd stayed with Trump while he ticked down a list of what he called "corny" jokes about being a former Democrat and sarcastically calling himself "modest." And they mostly laughed along when he joked about Clinton accidentally bumping into him back stage and saying "pardon me."
"I very politely replied: Let me talk to you about that after I get into office," Trump landed the punchline. Trumps as said previously that Clinton should be in jail for various reasons. Clinton was seen laughing.
His 20 minutes went downhill rapidly after that.
Clinton, on the other hand went straight to herself for humor. "I took a break from my rigorous nap schedule to be here," Clinton told the audience. And "Usually, I charge a lot for speeches like this."
She got in some rather harsh zingers, but they didn't get boos and there were definitely Trump supporters in the audience. Rudy Giuliani was there and was the subject of one Clinton joke. Clinton mentioned the many dignitaries in the audience positively, and then said "and then there is Rudy Giuliani". Ouch!
“Now, many don’t know this,” Clinton continued, “but Rudy actually got his start as a prosecutor going after wealthy New Yorker's who avoided paying taxes. But, as the saying goes, ‘If you can’t beat them, go on Fox News and call them a genius". Giuliani, a Trump surrogate speaker of increasing vicious attacks on Clinton, looked like he had a hot coal up where the sun doesn't shine...
But for the most part, Clinton was making jokes on herself and light digs at Trump, and Trump was his usual mean self. I understand that. People who are internally confident and happy can make jokes about themselves.
Not to say too much about myself in all of this, but I don't find self-humor threatening. I tripped over a cat once while a friend was there, and landed on my hands and knees. My first words were "so this is what it looks like from their point of view".
People like Trump can't laugh at themselves. If one of his staff had written the absolutely funniest self-deprecating joke ever created, Trump would not have used it. It would be against himself, and he can't imagine anyone against him. Because they would simply be "wrong".
My point here, long time in coming, is that Trump can't be President because he lacks the fullness of self-awareness that allows most of us to laugh at ourselves. I had a friend who did the almost slapstick gag of stepping onto a small boat from the pier and fell into the water as the boat moved away.
I laughed my ass off. It was as if you actually saw someone slip on a banana peel. He was livid, angry, enraged... If I had done that myself, I would have keeled over in laughter at myself as I pulled myself onto the boat, and asked if anyone got a picture of it!
Narcissistic megalomaniac bullies cannot laugh at themselves. Most of the rest of us can. At ourselves, and at them...
But basically, all this means that the US Presidential election is decided. Clinton will win; the question is by how much and will she carry the Senate and/or House along with her. For the Democratic party, life looks good for 2 Presidential terms. The interim elections are always iffy. But the gains of the day are sufficient for the day.
I will be glad after election night Nov 8th. No mor3e Trump for a while.
But do you know what is generally annoying? In several places around the US, some people are starting their campaigns for the 2020 Presidential elections...
At least it seems that the decision is no longer in doubt. We will be referring to "Madame President" for the first time ever here, Democrats will have won a 3rd consecutive term controlling the White House since 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt was re-elected to a 3rd personal consecutive term, and (to steal a phrase from an previous generation) a long national nightmare will be over.
The election results will probably give nominal control of the US Senate to the Democrats by a small majority. It is possible that the House of Representatives will become Democratic , but I'm not expecting it today (but who knows what things will look like in 3 weeks)? Trump and the Republicans have the 3 weeks to make things better or worse.
If the Al Smith Foundation Dinner last night was any clue, it will get worse for the Republicans. As background, the Dinner "is an annual white fundraiser in the United States for Catholic charities supporting needy children, held at theWaldorf-Astoria hotel in New York, on the third Thursday of October. It is organized by the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation in honor of Al Smith the former New York Governor and the first Catholic US Presidential candidate. The dinner is hosted by the Archbishop of New York.
The idea is for the 2 major Presidential candidates to engage in self deprecating humor and some gentle digs at their opponent.
Trump failed at that utterly. That's not just my opinion. He received boos and several points when he just made his regular speech at a few points. Commenters said afterwards that they had never heard boos at the event before.
Apparently, Trump does not understand humor at all. He did have a few funny lines, none of which were aimed at himself, and even as delivered fell flat. I suspect several of them would have gotten laughs if delivered by a professional. Sarcasm can be funny, but not when delivered in anger.
Trumps best joke was when he mentioned 'Michelle Obama made a speech and everyone loved it. It was great. My wife, Melania, made the exact same speech and everyone gets on her case.'
The audience loved it. It is probably the best humor about plagiarism ever! But even THEN, it wasn't aimed at himself.
The crowd stayed with Trump while he ticked down a list of what he called "corny" jokes about being a former Democrat and sarcastically calling himself "modest." And they mostly laughed along when he joked about Clinton accidentally bumping into him back stage and saying "pardon me."
"I very politely replied: Let me talk to you about that after I get into office," Trump landed the punchline. Trumps as said previously that Clinton should be in jail for various reasons. Clinton was seen laughing.
His 20 minutes went downhill rapidly after that.
Clinton, on the other hand went straight to herself for humor. "I took a break from my rigorous nap schedule to be here," Clinton told the audience. And "Usually, I charge a lot for speeches like this."
She got in some rather harsh zingers, but they didn't get boos and there were definitely Trump supporters in the audience. Rudy Giuliani was there and was the subject of one Clinton joke. Clinton mentioned the many dignitaries in the audience positively, and then said "and then there is Rudy Giuliani". Ouch!
“Now, many don’t know this,” Clinton continued, “but Rudy actually got his start as a prosecutor going after wealthy New Yorker's who avoided paying taxes. But, as the saying goes, ‘If you can’t beat them, go on Fox News and call them a genius". Giuliani, a Trump surrogate speaker of increasing vicious attacks on Clinton, looked like he had a hot coal up where the sun doesn't shine...
But for the most part, Clinton was making jokes on herself and light digs at Trump, and Trump was his usual mean self. I understand that. People who are internally confident and happy can make jokes about themselves.
Not to say too much about myself in all of this, but I don't find self-humor threatening. I tripped over a cat once while a friend was there, and landed on my hands and knees. My first words were "so this is what it looks like from their point of view".
People like Trump can't laugh at themselves. If one of his staff had written the absolutely funniest self-deprecating joke ever created, Trump would not have used it. It would be against himself, and he can't imagine anyone against him. Because they would simply be "wrong".
My point here, long time in coming, is that Trump can't be President because he lacks the fullness of self-awareness that allows most of us to laugh at ourselves. I had a friend who did the almost slapstick gag of stepping onto a small boat from the pier and fell into the water as the boat moved away.
I laughed my ass off. It was as if you actually saw someone slip on a banana peel. He was livid, angry, enraged... If I had done that myself, I would have keeled over in laughter at myself as I pulled myself onto the boat, and asked if anyone got a picture of it!
Narcissistic megalomaniac bullies cannot laugh at themselves. Most of the rest of us can. At ourselves, and at them...
But basically, all this means that the US Presidential election is decided. Clinton will win; the question is by how much and will she carry the Senate and/or House along with her. For the Democratic party, life looks good for 2 Presidential terms. The interim elections are always iffy. But the gains of the day are sufficient for the day.
I will be glad after election night Nov 8th. No mor3e Trump for a while.
But do you know what is generally annoying? In several places around the US, some people are starting their campaigns for the 2020 Presidential elections...
Sunday, October 9, 2016
Trump's Commennts About Women
I am posting this Saturday evening, before any new news about the Presidential debate or further news discussion about Trump's comments about how he views or has treated women comes out.
So this is general. You know I don't like Trump. He lies. He lies about what he said years ago and he lies about what he said yesterday. There is nearly no position that Trump has ever claimed that he has not denied afterwards.
My point here is not to list them. Professional journalists and fact-checkers have done that before and found/proved him to be a pathological liar about almost everything. That is what he is. You can accept him for that or deny it, but he is that so frequently proven.
My concern today is the video of his comments about women. Trump was politically-fatally damaged by the video. Trump will never be a President of the US.
What I want to discuss is his justification for the comments. His claim was they were locker room comments. I've been in locker rooms. I played soccer in high school and that was a rough bunch. And we often shared locker room time with the football players and they tend toward crudeness. Comments about cheerleaders, comments about fans in the stands. Never in any locker room did I hear statements like Trump made.
In college, I tried rugby for a few months, and never did I hear such comments there.
And let me try to explain it. In the locker room, some guys talked about expectations of having sex with their girlfriends. Some talked about about going out to a local bar and trying to hook up with "fangirls".
Those were mostly established monogomous relationships or just plain fantasies. There is a difference!
That isn't what Trump was talking about. He was talking about outright predatory sexual assault, he was talking about using a position of power and influence to get unwilling sex, he was talking about taking advantage of fear of retribution and career destruction to have sex with women. He wasn't talking about vague "desires". He was talking about actual factual experiences in his life and the expectation that they would continue. That is a VERY different thing.
The terms "creep, "vile", and "predator", come to mind.
His apologies are insipid, deceitful, and vapid! His first response was "I apologize if anyone was offended". Now THAT is a standard political trick. He isn't apologizing for what he SAID or DID, he is expressing some vague regret that OTHERS were upset by what he said or did which he considers perfectly OK. In other words " You are an overly-sensitive, politically-correct annoying twit who doesn't understand reality". That isn't an apology; that's an insult.
An apology is a clear unambiguous statement that you were wrong by all social standards, that you wish you had never said or done the thing, and that it was a strange inexplicable action that was totally out of character. Allowable reasons are things like utterly mis-speaking, medication effects, typos on your notes, etc.
When you say you can get away with things like that when you are famous, you can't even apologize at all. It is just "who you are"! And that IS who he IS!
So, Trump is no longer viable as President of the US in any consideration. That is simply an "absolute". I don't care what any supporter thinks of his general political views, I don't care what his supporters think of his list of Supreme Court nominees, I don't even care if he COULD improve the economy (which he wouldn't). That no longer matters.
Donald Trump must NOT ever be President of the US...
So this is general. You know I don't like Trump. He lies. He lies about what he said years ago and he lies about what he said yesterday. There is nearly no position that Trump has ever claimed that he has not denied afterwards.
My point here is not to list them. Professional journalists and fact-checkers have done that before and found/proved him to be a pathological liar about almost everything. That is what he is. You can accept him for that or deny it, but he is that so frequently proven.
My concern today is the video of his comments about women. Trump was politically-fatally damaged by the video. Trump will never be a President of the US.
What I want to discuss is his justification for the comments. His claim was they were locker room comments. I've been in locker rooms. I played soccer in high school and that was a rough bunch. And we often shared locker room time with the football players and they tend toward crudeness. Comments about cheerleaders, comments about fans in the stands. Never in any locker room did I hear statements like Trump made.
In college, I tried rugby for a few months, and never did I hear such comments there.
And let me try to explain it. In the locker room, some guys talked about expectations of having sex with their girlfriends. Some talked about about going out to a local bar and trying to hook up with "fangirls".
Those were mostly established monogomous relationships or just plain fantasies. There is a difference!
That isn't what Trump was talking about. He was talking about outright predatory sexual assault, he was talking about using a position of power and influence to get unwilling sex, he was talking about taking advantage of fear of retribution and career destruction to have sex with women. He wasn't talking about vague "desires". He was talking about actual factual experiences in his life and the expectation that they would continue. That is a VERY different thing.
The terms "creep, "vile", and "predator", come to mind.
His apologies are insipid, deceitful, and vapid! His first response was "I apologize if anyone was offended". Now THAT is a standard political trick. He isn't apologizing for what he SAID or DID, he is expressing some vague regret that OTHERS were upset by what he said or did which he considers perfectly OK. In other words " You are an overly-sensitive, politically-correct annoying twit who doesn't understand reality". That isn't an apology; that's an insult.
An apology is a clear unambiguous statement that you were wrong by all social standards, that you wish you had never said or done the thing, and that it was a strange inexplicable action that was totally out of character. Allowable reasons are things like utterly mis-speaking, medication effects, typos on your notes, etc.
When you say you can get away with things like that when you are famous, you can't even apologize at all. It is just "who you are"! And that IS who he IS!
So, Trump is no longer viable as President of the US in any consideration. That is simply an "absolute". I don't care what any supporter thinks of his general political views, I don't care what his supporters think of his list of Supreme Court nominees, I don't even care if he COULD improve the economy (which he wouldn't). That no longer matters.
Donald Trump must NOT ever be President of the US...
Wednesday, October 5, 2016
VP Debate
The VPs had one job in their debate; defend their Presidential candidates.
My initial thoughts (listening to it on radio twice) is that Pence defending Trump and Kaine did a good job defending Clinton and got some jabs in on his own. Kaine came out ahead.
Pence mainly denied things that Trump had said, while Kaine kept pointing those things out. That made it hard for Pence, who doesn't really support most of Trump's opinions. But given that, Pence did the best he could, and in a technical sense, skillfully. He has set himself up as the top contender for the Republican nominee in 2020.
But he will face most of the losing Republican candidates of 2016 , so it will be another crowded field.
Kaine did a good job of defending Clinton, Obama, and Democratic positions in general in general, so he has a future also. Whether an elected VP, or the losing one, he did well enough to establish himself as a leader in the party. Obviously, being a winning VP will be better than a losing one, but either way, he is "noticed".
If Trump wins and fails at leadership, the 2020 election could well match Pence and Kaine and I'm sure they are both planning for that. Or if Clinton wins, as seems likely, Kaine will bide his time as VP and go for the Presidency in 2014.
But overall, Kaine won because he supported the likely next President and Pence won because he represented the conservatives who hate Trump.
This election might be the last of the Boomers, with Clinton. The next might be even more contentious.
My initial thoughts (listening to it on radio twice) is that Pence defending Trump and Kaine did a good job defending Clinton and got some jabs in on his own. Kaine came out ahead.
Pence mainly denied things that Trump had said, while Kaine kept pointing those things out. That made it hard for Pence, who doesn't really support most of Trump's opinions. But given that, Pence did the best he could, and in a technical sense, skillfully. He has set himself up as the top contender for the Republican nominee in 2020.
But he will face most of the losing Republican candidates of 2016 , so it will be another crowded field.
Kaine did a good job of defending Clinton, Obama, and Democratic positions in general in general, so he has a future also. Whether an elected VP, or the losing one, he did well enough to establish himself as a leader in the party. Obviously, being a winning VP will be better than a losing one, but either way, he is "noticed".
If Trump wins and fails at leadership, the 2020 election could well match Pence and Kaine and I'm sure they are both planning for that. Or if Clinton wins, as seems likely, Kaine will bide his time as VP and go for the Presidency in 2014.
But overall, Kaine won because he supported the likely next President and Pence won because he represented the conservatives who hate Trump.
This election might be the last of the Boomers, with Clinton. The next might be even more contentious.
Saturday, October 1, 2016
Trump/Clinton Presidential Debate
I just can't help responding to the Trump/Clinton Debate as it was just so odd. In my 48 years of watching presidential debates, I have never seen anything like it.
Right after the debate, Trump tweeted that the Moderator was very good and that he (Trump) had clearly won. Then, after a few hours, Trump learned that he had not done so well in the debate, and suddenly the Moderator was merely "OK". The next day, when the first polls came out showing that Trump had lost the debate in the opinion of the viewing public, he decided that the Moderator had been really tricky and against him personally.
Since when does the Moderator's performance change over time as one's ratings of the debate performance go down and it is not your fault?
I'm not claiming that Trump lost the debate because polls said so. I'm not claiming that Trump lost the debate because CNN said so. I'm claiming that Trump lost the debate because even Fox News admits it!
And it gets worse for Trump. He jumped at a Clinton suggestion that Trump paid no taxes like most of us have to, saying "I'm smart not to". Well, maybe that is good for his business, but it means he can't claim to support our military forces, our economy, or domestic security groups.
He lost the rest of the debate by constantly making snide remarks during Clinton's turn to speak and insulting groups of voters in his turn to speak.
Then he attacked a former Miss Universe ( a business he controlled at the time) saying she was "too fat". Have you seen pictures? She was as forced-self-starved as all beauty-pageant contestants are. As I understand it, she gained a few pounds after the contest, and that was probably good for her health.
And Trump couldn't let it go about her. I tweeted several times after midnight to dawn about her. Really? How wants a President how fixates on irrelevant issues in the middle of the night?
Trump claimed that "polls" suggested he won. Yeah, those were the kinds of online surveys where people can set up their computer to vote repeatedly. The real polls, conducted by professionals say he lost the debate about 55% to 25% (the rest unsure).
I wish Trump would discuss some details of his plans to defeat ISIS, solve US poverty, reduce crime in cities, and apportion our tax dollars among problems like infrastructure rebuilding, military training and equipment, tax reform, rebuilding the middle class, education, etc. But he just won't discuss those things beyond "I'll Make America Great Again". Good, tell me how you'll do that!
I want to hear details. Blind assurances do not move me. Clinton gives details.
I read an fairly neutral analysis that Trump stated a positive lie every 3 minutes 15 seconds as he spoke (12). They caught Clinton on 1 (about a trade agreement staement). I can accept a few deceptions for "Reasons of State", but a 12 to 1 ratio does not encourage me to support Trump. Most of his lies don't even make sense!
And then there were a couple interviews with the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. What a sad joke. He didn't know what or where Aleppo was. And then couldn't name a single world leader he admired. A smarter person, blanking on names might have said he didn't admire any of them. But that wasn't his problem. He actually didn't know any names.
Seriously, *I* could have come up with Merkel, Cameron (only recently out of office), and Hollande, and I don't keep track of foreign leaders (paying more attention to places as nations).
His VP candidate tried to mention former President Vincente Fox of Mexico, but I haven't liked him since he referred to the illegal hispanic migration into the Southern US as "The Reconquista".
So Trump is an unqualified habitual liar and ignorant of world affairs, Johnson is just ignorant and ignorant of world affairs, and Clinton is telented at dealing with world leaders, nuanced and thoughtful.
That's a contest?
Right after the debate, Trump tweeted that the Moderator was very good and that he (Trump) had clearly won. Then, after a few hours, Trump learned that he had not done so well in the debate, and suddenly the Moderator was merely "OK". The next day, when the first polls came out showing that Trump had lost the debate in the opinion of the viewing public, he decided that the Moderator had been really tricky and against him personally.
Since when does the Moderator's performance change over time as one's ratings of the debate performance go down and it is not your fault?
I'm not claiming that Trump lost the debate because polls said so. I'm not claiming that Trump lost the debate because CNN said so. I'm claiming that Trump lost the debate because even Fox News admits it!
And it gets worse for Trump. He jumped at a Clinton suggestion that Trump paid no taxes like most of us have to, saying "I'm smart not to". Well, maybe that is good for his business, but it means he can't claim to support our military forces, our economy, or domestic security groups.
He lost the rest of the debate by constantly making snide remarks during Clinton's turn to speak and insulting groups of voters in his turn to speak.
Then he attacked a former Miss Universe ( a business he controlled at the time) saying she was "too fat". Have you seen pictures? She was as forced-self-starved as all beauty-pageant contestants are. As I understand it, she gained a few pounds after the contest, and that was probably good for her health.
And Trump couldn't let it go about her. I tweeted several times after midnight to dawn about her. Really? How wants a President how fixates on irrelevant issues in the middle of the night?
Trump claimed that "polls" suggested he won. Yeah, those were the kinds of online surveys where people can set up their computer to vote repeatedly. The real polls, conducted by professionals say he lost the debate about 55% to 25% (the rest unsure).
I wish Trump would discuss some details of his plans to defeat ISIS, solve US poverty, reduce crime in cities, and apportion our tax dollars among problems like infrastructure rebuilding, military training and equipment, tax reform, rebuilding the middle class, education, etc. But he just won't discuss those things beyond "I'll Make America Great Again". Good, tell me how you'll do that!
I want to hear details. Blind assurances do not move me. Clinton gives details.
I read an fairly neutral analysis that Trump stated a positive lie every 3 minutes 15 seconds as he spoke (12). They caught Clinton on 1 (about a trade agreement staement). I can accept a few deceptions for "Reasons of State", but a 12 to 1 ratio does not encourage me to support Trump. Most of his lies don't even make sense!
And then there were a couple interviews with the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson. What a sad joke. He didn't know what or where Aleppo was. And then couldn't name a single world leader he admired. A smarter person, blanking on names might have said he didn't admire any of them. But that wasn't his problem. He actually didn't know any names.
Seriously, *I* could have come up with Merkel, Cameron (only recently out of office), and Hollande, and I don't keep track of foreign leaders (paying more attention to places as nations).
His VP candidate tried to mention former President Vincente Fox of Mexico, but I haven't liked him since he referred to the illegal hispanic migration into the Southern US as "The Reconquista".
So Trump is an unqualified habitual liar and ignorant of world affairs, Johnson is just ignorant and ignorant of world affairs, and Clinton is telented at dealing with world leaders, nuanced and thoughtful.
That's a contest?
Friday, July 22, 2016
Trump's Convention Speech, Deconstructed
Donald Trump made his most important speech so far, at the Republican National Convention. I went to Politifacts (and party-neutral organization) for some analysis. I really don’t care for political speeches myself on either side, but I do find those who do can provide useful information. Slight changes to identify Politifacts more clearly...
TRUMP CLAIM: We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint. This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal.
POLITIFACTS: It actually came AFTER the signing of the Iran deal, which happened on July 14, 2015. The sailors were captured in Jan. 2016 — right before President Obama's State of the Union address.
MY THOUGHTS: Trump’s sense of time is poor. It might be deliberate or it might be “convenient”. But it is usually wrong. Trump arranges facts to suit his goals. In other words, he lies.
Trump Calls for Suspending Immigration From 'Compromised' Countries 0:27
TRUMP CLAIM: My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment.
POLITIFACTS: Clinton has proposed gun regulations, like background checks to purchase firearms. Yet the 2008 Supreme Court decision protecting and individual's right to possess firearms also stated that the right isn't unlimited — and can be subjected to regulations.
MY THOUGHTS: Clinton supports some restrictions on gun ownership. You don’t need military weapons to hunt deer. Crazy people shouldn’t have them. More people are killed by personally-owned guns than are saved. You need military weapons only for their intended purpose - to kill people. My view of the 2nd amendment is that it is pre-standing army and it is obsolete in the modern age. We do not have or need functional “militias” today.
TRUMP CLAIM: Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's fifty largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years.
POLITIFACT: Trump is correct that there has recently been an uptick in crime, including in some (but not all) of America's largest cities. But overall, violent crime is down significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, according to FBI statistics. And the current violent crime rate is lower today per the most recent data (365 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 people) than when President Obama first took office in 2009 (431 incidents per 100,000 people).
MY THOUGHTS: Crime rates go up and down mostly in accordance to the population of 18-24 years old males in poverty status. Drug-usage patterns matter too.
TRUMP CLAIM: The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015.
POLITIFACTS: That statistic is true, but it's also a bit of cherry-picking. In Fiscal Year 2014, there were more than 68,000 apprehensions of immigrant families crossing the border. That number declined to 40,000 in Fiscal Year 2015. In Fiscal Year 2016 (which ends in September), the number stands at 51,000 — so higher than in 2015, but lower than 2014.
MY THOUGHTS: 2015 had an unusually low illegal immigration rate. Compared to 2014, the 2016 rate is lower. It it always easy to find one year to compare to another and make things look bad. A serious and thoughtful person would not do that. But Trump is not a serious and thoughtful person. If a random asteroid hit the Earth, he would blame Hillary Clinton and all Democrats for the uptick in asteroid strikes.
TRUMP CLAIM: Nearly four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58 percent of African-American youth are now not employed. Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when the President took his oath of office less than eight years ago.
POLITIFACT: Yes, 38 percent of African American children are living in poverty, according to Census data. But Trump isn't correct that 58 percent of African American youth are unemployed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that the African American unemployment rate for those ages 16-19 is 28.4 percent (versus 16.9 percent for all youth that age). And Trump is misleading on his claim about Latinos living in poverty. In 2009, 12.3 million Latinos were living in poverty (with a rate of 25.3 percent). In 2014, the number jumped to 13 million — but the rate actually DECLINED to 23.6 percent.
MY THOUGHTS: Another example of misleading with statistics. But more importantly, there are 2 possibilities. Either Trump doesn’t understand the numbers, or he does and is deliberately misleading voters with them. He says he is smart, so he OUGHT to understand the numbers. Either way, it doesn’t say much about his honesty. Or his supporters intelligence...
TRUMP CLAIM: President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than 19 trillion dollars, and growing.
POLITIFACT: He's right. When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the public debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is now $19.4 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
MY THOUGHTS: In 2009, after the Bush Administration economic collapse $10.6 trillion dollars was a larger percent of the gross national product than $19.4 trillion is now in the recovered economy. Think of it this way. If you earned $50,000 and owed $10,000 that would be worse than earning $75,000 and owing $13,000. Debt has to be compared to income...
TRUMP CLAIM: Where was sanctuary for all the other ... Americans who have been so brutally murdered [by undocumented immigrants], and who have suffered so, so horribly?
POLITIFACTS: Researchers have found that first-generation immigrants (legal or not) commit less crime than native-born Americans or second-generation immigrants.
MY THOUGHTS: Some groups of US citizens like to assume that immigrants (legal or illegal) commit most of the crimes in the US. The facts disprove that. I support LEGAL immigration, controlled by rules. I do NOT support illegal immigration. But the argument against all immigrants legal and illegal is not supported by facts. I am more likely to be a victim of a crime by a legal citizen than by either class of immigrants.
TRUMP CLAIM: [Hillary Clinton] supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization — another one of her husband's colossal mistakes and disasters ... She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
POLITIFACTS: Trump is correct that Clinton backed NAFTA and China's entry into the WTO, which took place while her husband was president. Yet although touting the TPP trade agreement while she served as secretary of state, Clinton has since opposed the measure. Notably, Trump's vice-presidential running mate Mike Pence also has praised NAFTA and TPP.
MY THOUGHTS: Trump is in an outrageously awkward position here. Globalization is a fact. Companies logically move to where they can produce a product at the least cost. Trump does this routinely. Trump has pages long suppliers from other countries yet rails against outsourcing. His objections ring hollow.
Aside from that, Trump objects to Clinton’s one-time support of NAFTA and the TPP. People change their opinions of such things (and note that Trump’s VP candidate supported them too).
But the truth of the matter is that, in a global economy, international trade agreements are important. The TPP is designed to constrain China’s influence in the Western Pacific. China doesn’t like it.
NAFTA has reduced tarrifs between the US Canada and Mexico, reducing costs to consumers. NAFTA has increased real wages for workers in all 3 countries by modest but real amounts. Trade of goods and services between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has increased from $337 billion in 1993, before NAFTA went into effect, to $1.182 trillion in 2011.
We don’t notice these price changes in goods daily. After all, when you go to a store, do you really know why the price of a shirt is $12.99 instead of $13.99? Of course not. But NAFTA is one reason why it is the lower price.
I won’t say the trade agreement benefit everyone. A shirt buttoneer may have to learn to attach headlights to cars. Things change, I had a dozen jobs in my 35 years of work from mowing army base grass to selling automotive parts to managing office space to managing telecommunications. No one is ever going to retire what they did when they started.
Jobs are where you find them. But Trump’s world is a fiction of a return to the past, and following him is a road down anger to nowhere.
The way forward in the world is through experience and gradual progress. If you are out of work, your next job isn’t going to be the CEO of some US company. It is going to be learning a new skill a US company values.
Trump’s World is the 1950s. This isn’t the 1950s. We aren’t going to be the 1950s again. Its 2016, the future your parents didn’t imagine. Get moving or get left behind. It’s up to you to sit and gripe and start learning something new.
TRUMP CLAIM: We all remember the images of our sailors being forced to their knees by their Iranian captors at gunpoint. This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal.
POLITIFACTS: It actually came AFTER the signing of the Iran deal, which happened on July 14, 2015. The sailors were captured in Jan. 2016 — right before President Obama's State of the Union address.
MY THOUGHTS: Trump’s sense of time is poor. It might be deliberate or it might be “convenient”. But it is usually wrong. Trump arranges facts to suit his goals. In other words, he lies.
Trump Calls for Suspending Immigration From 'Compromised' Countries 0:27
TRUMP CLAIM: My opponent wants to essentially abolish the 2nd amendment.
POLITIFACTS: Clinton has proposed gun regulations, like background checks to purchase firearms. Yet the 2008 Supreme Court decision protecting and individual's right to possess firearms also stated that the right isn't unlimited — and can be subjected to regulations.
MY THOUGHTS: Clinton supports some restrictions on gun ownership. You don’t need military weapons to hunt deer. Crazy people shouldn’t have them. More people are killed by personally-owned guns than are saved. You need military weapons only for their intended purpose - to kill people. My view of the 2nd amendment is that it is pre-standing army and it is obsolete in the modern age. We do not have or need functional “militias” today.
TRUMP CLAIM: Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America's fifty largest cities. That's the largest increase in 25 years.
POLITIFACT: Trump is correct that there has recently been an uptick in crime, including in some (but not all) of America's largest cities. But overall, violent crime is down significantly since the 1980s and 1990s, according to FBI statistics. And the current violent crime rate is lower today per the most recent data (365 incidents of violent crime per 100,000 people) than when President Obama first took office in 2009 (431 incidents per 100,000 people).
MY THOUGHTS: Crime rates go up and down mostly in accordance to the population of 18-24 years old males in poverty status. Drug-usage patterns matter too.
TRUMP CLAIM: The number of new illegal immigrant families who have crossed the border so far this year already exceeds the entire total from 2015.
POLITIFACTS: That statistic is true, but it's also a bit of cherry-picking. In Fiscal Year 2014, there were more than 68,000 apprehensions of immigrant families crossing the border. That number declined to 40,000 in Fiscal Year 2015. In Fiscal Year 2016 (which ends in September), the number stands at 51,000 — so higher than in 2015, but lower than 2014.
MY THOUGHTS: 2015 had an unusually low illegal immigration rate. Compared to 2014, the 2016 rate is lower. It it always easy to find one year to compare to another and make things look bad. A serious and thoughtful person would not do that. But Trump is not a serious and thoughtful person. If a random asteroid hit the Earth, he would blame Hillary Clinton and all Democrats for the uptick in asteroid strikes.
TRUMP CLAIM: Nearly four in 10 African-American children are living in poverty, while 58 percent of African-American youth are now not employed. Two million more Latinos are in poverty today than when the President took his oath of office less than eight years ago.
POLITIFACT: Yes, 38 percent of African American children are living in poverty, according to Census data. But Trump isn't correct that 58 percent of African American youth are unemployed. The Bureau of Labor Statistics finds that the African American unemployment rate for those ages 16-19 is 28.4 percent (versus 16.9 percent for all youth that age). And Trump is misleading on his claim about Latinos living in poverty. In 2009, 12.3 million Latinos were living in poverty (with a rate of 25.3 percent). In 2014, the number jumped to 13 million — but the rate actually DECLINED to 23.6 percent.
MY THOUGHTS: Another example of misleading with statistics. But more importantly, there are 2 possibilities. Either Trump doesn’t understand the numbers, or he does and is deliberately misleading voters with them. He says he is smart, so he OUGHT to understand the numbers. Either way, it doesn’t say much about his honesty. Or his supporters intelligence...
TRUMP CLAIM: President Obama has almost doubled our national debt to more than 19 trillion dollars, and growing.
POLITIFACT: He's right. When Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, the public debt stood at $10.6 trillion. It is now $19.4 trillion, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
MY THOUGHTS: In 2009, after the Bush Administration economic collapse $10.6 trillion dollars was a larger percent of the gross national product than $19.4 trillion is now in the recovered economy. Think of it this way. If you earned $50,000 and owed $10,000 that would be worse than earning $75,000 and owing $13,000. Debt has to be compared to income...
TRUMP CLAIM: Where was sanctuary for all the other ... Americans who have been so brutally murdered [by undocumented immigrants], and who have suffered so, so horribly?
POLITIFACTS: Researchers have found that first-generation immigrants (legal or not) commit less crime than native-born Americans or second-generation immigrants.
MY THOUGHTS: Some groups of US citizens like to assume that immigrants (legal or illegal) commit most of the crimes in the US. The facts disprove that. I support LEGAL immigration, controlled by rules. I do NOT support illegal immigration. But the argument against all immigrants legal and illegal is not supported by facts. I am more likely to be a victim of a crime by a legal citizen than by either class of immigrants.
TRUMP CLAIM: [Hillary Clinton] supported NAFTA, and she supported China's entrance into the World Trade Organization — another one of her husband's colossal mistakes and disasters ... She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
POLITIFACTS: Trump is correct that Clinton backed NAFTA and China's entry into the WTO, which took place while her husband was president. Yet although touting the TPP trade agreement while she served as secretary of state, Clinton has since opposed the measure. Notably, Trump's vice-presidential running mate Mike Pence also has praised NAFTA and TPP.
MY THOUGHTS: Trump is in an outrageously awkward position here. Globalization is a fact. Companies logically move to where they can produce a product at the least cost. Trump does this routinely. Trump has pages long suppliers from other countries yet rails against outsourcing. His objections ring hollow.
Aside from that, Trump objects to Clinton’s one-time support of NAFTA and the TPP. People change their opinions of such things (and note that Trump’s VP candidate supported them too).
But the truth of the matter is that, in a global economy, international trade agreements are important. The TPP is designed to constrain China’s influence in the Western Pacific. China doesn’t like it.
NAFTA has reduced tarrifs between the US Canada and Mexico, reducing costs to consumers. NAFTA has increased real wages for workers in all 3 countries by modest but real amounts. Trade of goods and services between the U.S., Canada and Mexico has increased from $337 billion in 1993, before NAFTA went into effect, to $1.182 trillion in 2011.
We don’t notice these price changes in goods daily. After all, when you go to a store, do you really know why the price of a shirt is $12.99 instead of $13.99? Of course not. But NAFTA is one reason why it is the lower price.
I won’t say the trade agreement benefit everyone. A shirt buttoneer may have to learn to attach headlights to cars. Things change, I had a dozen jobs in my 35 years of work from mowing army base grass to selling automotive parts to managing office space to managing telecommunications. No one is ever going to retire what they did when they started.
Jobs are where you find them. But Trump’s world is a fiction of a return to the past, and following him is a road down anger to nowhere.
The way forward in the world is through experience and gradual progress. If you are out of work, your next job isn’t going to be the CEO of some US company. It is going to be learning a new skill a US company values.
Trump’s World is the 1950s. This isn’t the 1950s. We aren’t going to be the 1950s again. Its 2016, the future your parents didn’t imagine. Get moving or get left behind. It’s up to you to sit and gripe and start learning something new.
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Politics As A Profit Center
I suspected many months ago that Trump was playing the money game by running for office as he gave his speeches. Now I have more evidence.
The recent Federal Election Commission filings provide information Trump would preferred to hide. But unlike tax filings, those are public.
Trump says he is financing his campaign. Well, not really. He is LOANING money to his campaign (and loans usually have interest charges). That's right, he is loaning personal money (and it may be more tricky than that) to his campaign. That means he is signing the checks on both sides of the loan! The campaign is obligated to back Trump back for the money he is essentially loaning to himself.
Don't you wish you could borrow money that easily and expect payment back? But it gets worse...
Trump is using his own businesses to support his campaign. And he is charging his campaign a hefty sum for "privilege" of using his own services. The idea seems to be that he will use his own companies to benefit financially supporting his Presidential campaign. Its a great gig, if you can arrange it. And Trump does.
Use his his own jet to fly to campaign stops? Trump charges himself high fees. Staying at his own residences in various States? Trump charges the top rates to his campaign. Eat at a fundraiser (and yes he has them though he says he doesn't) you eat Trump steak and drink Trump wine. Get given a framed picture of The Donald for a donation? That picture comes in a Trump Picture Frame.
Play a round of golf with Trump? High green fees for the round charged to his campaign. He charges the campaign to operate his campaign in various business locations he profits from.
Staffers and campaign supporters eat at Trump restaurants, fly accumulating Trump miles, and wear Trump T-shirts made by Trump companies. Those Trump hats he tosses out at campaign rallies? A staffer company makes those and the campaign pays top dollar for them.
On the single day Trump announced his campaign in June 2015, his campaign cost generated $506,846 to Trump businesses. One single day!
By the end of just 2015, the Trump campaign paid out $2.2 million, $2 million of which went to the airline where Trump is the CEO...
$90,000 went to staffers eating at Trump Cafe and Trump Grill...
Unspecified amounts went to Trump Payroll Corp. and Trump Tower Commercial LLC to pay for campaign staff payroll management, but that work isn't cheap...
This isn't a campaign, its a profit-making scam! The Republican party has finally produced the perfect example of its long-held claim that businessmen (and it's usually men) are the most suited to run the country for the benefit of all the citizens. If running for office is now a profit-center for Republican candidates to operate as a business, do you want to see what laws they pass? I sure don't.
The recent Federal Election Commission filings provide information Trump would preferred to hide. But unlike tax filings, those are public.
Trump says he is financing his campaign. Well, not really. He is LOANING money to his campaign (and loans usually have interest charges). That's right, he is loaning personal money (and it may be more tricky than that) to his campaign. That means he is signing the checks on both sides of the loan! The campaign is obligated to back Trump back for the money he is essentially loaning to himself.
Don't you wish you could borrow money that easily and expect payment back? But it gets worse...
Trump is using his own businesses to support his campaign. And he is charging his campaign a hefty sum for "privilege" of using his own services. The idea seems to be that he will use his own companies to benefit financially supporting his Presidential campaign. Its a great gig, if you can arrange it. And Trump does.
Use his his own jet to fly to campaign stops? Trump charges himself high fees. Staying at his own residences in various States? Trump charges the top rates to his campaign. Eat at a fundraiser (and yes he has them though he says he doesn't) you eat Trump steak and drink Trump wine. Get given a framed picture of The Donald for a donation? That picture comes in a Trump Picture Frame.
Play a round of golf with Trump? High green fees for the round charged to his campaign. He charges the campaign to operate his campaign in various business locations he profits from.
Staffers and campaign supporters eat at Trump restaurants, fly accumulating Trump miles, and wear Trump T-shirts made by Trump companies. Those Trump hats he tosses out at campaign rallies? A staffer company makes those and the campaign pays top dollar for them.
On the single day Trump announced his campaign in June 2015, his campaign cost generated $506,846 to Trump businesses. One single day!
By the end of just 2015, the Trump campaign paid out $2.2 million, $2 million of which went to the airline where Trump is the CEO...
$90,000 went to staffers eating at Trump Cafe and Trump Grill...
Unspecified amounts went to Trump Payroll Corp. and Trump Tower Commercial LLC to pay for campaign staff payroll management, but that work isn't cheap...
This isn't a campaign, its a profit-making scam! The Republican party has finally produced the perfect example of its long-held claim that businessmen (and it's usually men) are the most suited to run the country for the benefit of all the citizens. If running for office is now a profit-center for Republican candidates to operate as a business, do you want to see what laws they pass? I sure don't.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
Politics
Trump loves insulting nicknames for people, and they are usually wrong...
1. "Crazy Bernie" - Bernie Sanders is passionate, but he certainly is not crazy. He has very long-thought-out views, and in a more rational world, they would be assumed.
2. "Crooked Hillary" - Show me any instance where Hillary Clinton has been shown to break a law. Endless Republican claims are not evidence of wrong-doing.
3. "Little Marco" - If I thought Trump was knowledgeable about history, I might grant him the fact that he knows that taller candidates for President usually win. But he isn't that knowledgeable about anything and that isn't what he meant by "little". So he was just reaching for another baseless insult.
4. "Lyin Ted" - Well, Ted Cruz does lie about almost everything. He is despised by his fellow Senators, and he is disliked by many Republicans. But Trump never specified a lie by Cruz. He just makes unspecified claims and lets his supporters fill in the blanks in their minds.
5. "Low Energy Jeb" - Jeb Bush is not the most charismatic campaigner compared to Trump. But he was active in FL, is well-regarded, and has a following. Trump thinks that activity equals success. Quieter people with actual ideas can do better than Trump.
6. "1 For 41 Kasich" - Yeah Kasich didn't win any primaries other than his home state. But in a normal year, he would have been the Republican nominee. Bad timing...
7. "Goofy Elizabeth Warren" and "Pocahantas" - Elizabeth Warren is passionate but certainly not "goofy". Her ideas are well-thought-out, her arguments valid, and her now-famous "you didn't build that" is the best destruction of the wealthy claim "we built that" I have ever heard. For those of you not familiar with this, she pointed out that the wealthy depend on the educational, infrastructural, national financial and legal systems that we have all paid for, that the rich use to create their wealth..
Trump is a bully. A fake. A sham. He lives on his brand, and there is no substance to it. He is like a tofu sausage, claiming to be the latter while only the former.
He claims to support working people, but he cheats them all the time in his business deals. He refuses to pay them and dares them to sue him. To Trump, cheating is "winning". He glories in cheating working people.
I have a sneaking suspicion he does not want to actually be President with all the restrictions and personal limitation involved. I bet he manages not to be elected.. He might even manufacture an arguement to prevent his nomination.
Think about it. Trump would go crazy under the restrictions of being President. His business drive would be stopped cold, his freedom of movement restricted, his every word examined and parsed, and he would have to make real decisions involving the well-being of US citizens (and world events).
I predict that he will panic, and find a way out of being nominated. More about his reasons for running tomorrow...
1. "Crazy Bernie" - Bernie Sanders is passionate, but he certainly is not crazy. He has very long-thought-out views, and in a more rational world, they would be assumed.
2. "Crooked Hillary" - Show me any instance where Hillary Clinton has been shown to break a law. Endless Republican claims are not evidence of wrong-doing.
3. "Little Marco" - If I thought Trump was knowledgeable about history, I might grant him the fact that he knows that taller candidates for President usually win. But he isn't that knowledgeable about anything and that isn't what he meant by "little". So he was just reaching for another baseless insult.
4. "Lyin Ted" - Well, Ted Cruz does lie about almost everything. He is despised by his fellow Senators, and he is disliked by many Republicans. But Trump never specified a lie by Cruz. He just makes unspecified claims and lets his supporters fill in the blanks in their minds.
5. "Low Energy Jeb" - Jeb Bush is not the most charismatic campaigner compared to Trump. But he was active in FL, is well-regarded, and has a following. Trump thinks that activity equals success. Quieter people with actual ideas can do better than Trump.
6. "1 For 41 Kasich" - Yeah Kasich didn't win any primaries other than his home state. But in a normal year, he would have been the Republican nominee. Bad timing...
7. "Goofy Elizabeth Warren" and "Pocahantas" - Elizabeth Warren is passionate but certainly not "goofy". Her ideas are well-thought-out, her arguments valid, and her now-famous "you didn't build that" is the best destruction of the wealthy claim "we built that" I have ever heard. For those of you not familiar with this, she pointed out that the wealthy depend on the educational, infrastructural, national financial and legal systems that we have all paid for, that the rich use to create their wealth..
Trump is a bully. A fake. A sham. He lives on his brand, and there is no substance to it. He is like a tofu sausage, claiming to be the latter while only the former.
He claims to support working people, but he cheats them all the time in his business deals. He refuses to pay them and dares them to sue him. To Trump, cheating is "winning". He glories in cheating working people.
I have a sneaking suspicion he does not want to actually be President with all the restrictions and personal limitation involved. I bet he manages not to be elected.. He might even manufacture an arguement to prevent his nomination.
Think about it. Trump would go crazy under the restrictions of being President. His business drive would be stopped cold, his freedom of movement restricted, his every word examined and parsed, and he would have to make real decisions involving the well-being of US citizens (and world events).
I predict that he will panic, and find a way out of being nominated. More about his reasons for running tomorrow...
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Politics
After the last post, I want to make it clear that I do not think Hillary Clinton is perfect. I know, "DUH"! But thinking one candidate is essentially unfit to be President does not automatically make the other major party candidate better.
There are concerns about Hillary Clinton, as well. Some go back a long way. None of the buckets of charges against Hillary Clinton appear to hold water, though.
1. Whitewater - One of the earliest charges against the Clintons involved the Whitewater Development Company. The Clintons lost money in a real estate deal. The Whitewater Development company hired the law firm at which Hillary Clinton worked at the time for a separate failed investment.
Republicans claimed a conflict of interest and possible payback to the Clintons. 8 years of Republican-led investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars spent resulted in no finding of any wrongdoing by the Clintons.
2. WalMart - In 1986, Walmart (based in Arkansas) was under pressure to name women to their Board of Directors. Hillary Clinton, then merely a talented lawyer (from Arkansas) , was chosen. As a Board Member, she championed ethnic and gender management diversity and supported corporate environmental responsibility.
Republicans claim this proves she doesn't understand business priorities and that she supported low worker wages..
Today, these are recognized as legitimate business concerns. Her 6 years on the Walmart Board of Directors gave her considerable experience about how major business operate. And while there, she never supported the WalMart "low wages" strategy.
3. Monsanto - Republicans sometimes like to claim that Hillary Clinton once sat on the Monsanto (multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation) Board of Directors. This is a false claim designed to undermine her reputation for environmental concerns. There is no evidence for the claim.
4. Vince Foster - Republicans claim that the Clintons arranged to have Vince Foster (Deputy White House Counsel for Bill Clinton for a few months) killed to protect unspecified secrets. Mr Foster sufferred from depression exacerbated by the stress of some political failures (Kimba Wood and Lani Guinier recommendations were unsuccessful). There were several suicide notes, and there is evidence he spent some time organizing "end of life" concerns. The Clintons were cleared of involvement by the FBI and several independent investigations.
5. Wall Street And Bank Donations - Not all wall street investors and bankers are Republicans. But Republicans like to think they are. So they get really annoyed when VERY rich people Wall Street people support Democrats. They attack Hillary Clinton for being supported by some very wealthy people as some sort of flaw, when they glory in the very wealthy people who support THEM! It makes no sense that all wealthy people have to support Republicans. Some wealthy people support Democratic Party values too. And they like to hear from the Clintons.
6. Citizens United - Speaking of the false claim that Hillary Clinton favors the Wall Street Investors (above), she doesn't support the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. However, it being the current law, she has to operate within it's guidelines in order to run a viable campaign. She desires this Supreme Court ruling to be overturned in the interest of fairer campaigns in the future.
And I will add something here. MONEY is not "speech". One person, one vote does NOT mean "one dollar one vote"!
7. Benghazi - Diplomatic service is dangerous in some nations. There were 13 attacks on US Embassies during the George W Bush years, resulting in at least 60 deaths. 4 people died in Benghazi. All were tragic. The Benghazi situation was confusing of initial cause, and seems to have changed from a minor protest about religious images to an opportunistic attack for more political/religious/insurgent reasons by more violent elements.
The deaths at Benghazi have now been misused as attacks on Hillary Clinton while Secretary Of State. This is wrong. Several investigations have found no evidence that Scretary Of Stae Clinton, either allowed the attacks or refused to send military aid.
As best I can tell, the main Republican attack is that she did not call the incident a "terrorist attack" early enough publicly AND that she called it one to family and friends before the facts were certain. Public officials SHOULD be circumspect publicly.
In any case, there was no willful failure of duty. The idea that any Secretary Of State would willfully allow fellow officials to die is reprehensible. Numerous Republican investigations have failed to find any failure by Secretary Clinton. And they wasted $7 million of our taxes trying to do so.
8. Email server - It was an agency regulation, not a law. And every Secretary Of State since email was created ignored it. They are in charge of the rules and get to define them. And Clinton's server was never hacked. I wish more companies could claim that... That being said, it wasn't the smartest decision she ever made. But like my first boss told me, "everyone gets one minor screw-up". And this one is minor.
9. Dollars To Iran - Well, the dollars to Iran were Iran's money that we managed to lock away from them for years. We didn't GIVE them a dime. We (the international community) unlocked their international assets after negotiating a cessation of their nuclear research program. It wasn't Clinton's decision; it wasn't even Obama's decision. It was an international agreement.
There are concerns about Hillary Clinton, as well. Some go back a long way. None of the buckets of charges against Hillary Clinton appear to hold water, though.
1. Whitewater - One of the earliest charges against the Clintons involved the Whitewater Development Company. The Clintons lost money in a real estate deal. The Whitewater Development company hired the law firm at which Hillary Clinton worked at the time for a separate failed investment.
Republicans claimed a conflict of interest and possible payback to the Clintons. 8 years of Republican-led investigation and millions of taxpayer dollars spent resulted in no finding of any wrongdoing by the Clintons.
2. WalMart - In 1986, Walmart (based in Arkansas) was under pressure to name women to their Board of Directors. Hillary Clinton, then merely a talented lawyer (from Arkansas) , was chosen. As a Board Member, she championed ethnic and gender management diversity and supported corporate environmental responsibility.
Republicans claim this proves she doesn't understand business priorities and that she supported low worker wages..
Today, these are recognized as legitimate business concerns. Her 6 years on the Walmart Board of Directors gave her considerable experience about how major business operate. And while there, she never supported the WalMart "low wages" strategy.
3. Monsanto - Republicans sometimes like to claim that Hillary Clinton once sat on the Monsanto (multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation) Board of Directors. This is a false claim designed to undermine her reputation for environmental concerns. There is no evidence for the claim.
4. Vince Foster - Republicans claim that the Clintons arranged to have Vince Foster (Deputy White House Counsel for Bill Clinton for a few months) killed to protect unspecified secrets. Mr Foster sufferred from depression exacerbated by the stress of some political failures (Kimba Wood and Lani Guinier recommendations were unsuccessful). There were several suicide notes, and there is evidence he spent some time organizing "end of life" concerns. The Clintons were cleared of involvement by the FBI and several independent investigations.
5. Wall Street And Bank Donations - Not all wall street investors and bankers are Republicans. But Republicans like to think they are. So they get really annoyed when VERY rich people Wall Street people support Democrats. They attack Hillary Clinton for being supported by some very wealthy people as some sort of flaw, when they glory in the very wealthy people who support THEM! It makes no sense that all wealthy people have to support Republicans. Some wealthy people support Democratic Party values too. And they like to hear from the Clintons.
6. Citizens United - Speaking of the false claim that Hillary Clinton favors the Wall Street Investors (above), she doesn't support the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. However, it being the current law, she has to operate within it's guidelines in order to run a viable campaign. She desires this Supreme Court ruling to be overturned in the interest of fairer campaigns in the future.
And I will add something here. MONEY is not "speech". One person, one vote does NOT mean "one dollar one vote"!
7. Benghazi - Diplomatic service is dangerous in some nations. There were 13 attacks on US Embassies during the George W Bush years, resulting in at least 60 deaths. 4 people died in Benghazi. All were tragic. The Benghazi situation was confusing of initial cause, and seems to have changed from a minor protest about religious images to an opportunistic attack for more political/religious/insurgent reasons by more violent elements.
The deaths at Benghazi have now been misused as attacks on Hillary Clinton while Secretary Of State. This is wrong. Several investigations have found no evidence that Scretary Of Stae Clinton, either allowed the attacks or refused to send military aid.
As best I can tell, the main Republican attack is that she did not call the incident a "terrorist attack" early enough publicly AND that she called it one to family and friends before the facts were certain. Public officials SHOULD be circumspect publicly.
In any case, there was no willful failure of duty. The idea that any Secretary Of State would willfully allow fellow officials to die is reprehensible. Numerous Republican investigations have failed to find any failure by Secretary Clinton. And they wasted $7 million of our taxes trying to do so.
8. Email server - It was an agency regulation, not a law. And every Secretary Of State since email was created ignored it. They are in charge of the rules and get to define them. And Clinton's server was never hacked. I wish more companies could claim that... That being said, it wasn't the smartest decision she ever made. But like my first boss told me, "everyone gets one minor screw-up". And this one is minor.
9. Dollars To Iran - Well, the dollars to Iran were Iran's money that we managed to lock away from them for years. We didn't GIVE them a dime. We (the international community) unlocked their international assets after negotiating a cessation of their nuclear research program. It wasn't Clinton's decision; it wasn't even Obama's decision. It was an international agreement.
Friday, June 3, 2016
Politics
During the Political Season, I engage in political comments. And with the conventions and general elections coming, I'll start seriously.
Hillary Clinton delivered a serious speech castigating Trump yesterday, and made what I consider to be some serious points. I'm taking them from from MSNBC, but I listened to the speech and they are all in there... Clinton's quotes are in italics:
1. “I believe the person GOP nominated for president cannot do the job.”
That's an opinion (and stated as such), but I agree that Trump is not actually able to do the job of President. Conversely, one can hardly say that Clinton, a Senator from a large state and Secretary of State, is not generally qualified to be President.
2. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”
Yes, no essentially thoughtless person ever should. And Trump has demonstrated that he does not think much. Asked what he had read lately, he couldn't even come up with a newspaper. He finally allowed "All's Quiet On The Western Front" which is something he might have read in high school.
3. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”
True. Trump never says anything specific. He just makes unsupported claims to "do things".
4. After calling out Trump’s “nasty” tweets, Clinton said: “I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.”
Trump did in fact tweet during the speech.
5. “I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain [Trump’s] affection for tyrants.”
I have to agree. I've read enough about abnormal psychiatry to judge that. Trump loves dictators. He is one himself in his pond.
6. “There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”
Clinton makes the very good point that failure is a constant among real estate developers that is not permissible on the world stage of international relations.
7. “Making Donald Trump our commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake.”
An opinion, but a valid one. Trump has said he would encourage more nations to build nuclear weapons (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan). He actually does not understand what nuclear weapons can do today. A serious exchange of nuclear weapons would end human life.
8. “This isn’t reality television – this is actual reality.”
Trump does not see reality as you or I do. It is all about him. He thinks he can change the world after events occur. Well, that's how it works on TV or in Real Estate.
9. “[Trump’s} ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent.”
Trump changes his mind daily. He denies what he says on video. He might not even KNOW he changes his mind daily. Such people are very very dangerous.
10. “Letting ISIS run wild, launching a nuclear attack, starting a ground war; these are all distinct possibilities” with Trump “in charge.”
Trump as variously said that ISIS is dangerous, that it is not, that they are a serious threat, that he could kill them easily, that we spend too much on our military and that we do not spend enough. Such daily changes in thinking is a sign of lunacy.
11. “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”
Trump really is thin-skinned. He can't stand criticism. He is surrounded by "yes-men" and if they don't yell "YES" loud or fast enough, he fires them. He goes well, "Trumpish" about it. Children are like that. Teenagers are like that. Some adults are too, but most adults learn to control their emotions enough to maintain working relations with people who annoy them. Trump doesn't. He sues everyone who annoys him. He is involved in about 3500 lawsuits right now. What is he going to do with Putin, sue him? Threaten to cancel a casino project?
12. “I wonder if he even realizes he’s talking about nuclear war.”
Trump probably can't even imagine nuclear war. To him, it's just a "big bomb".
13. “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin.”
Putin would eat Trump for lunch and still feel hungry. Trump depends on his lawyers to get his way. Putin doesn't care about lawyers. Neither does any other world leader, friendly or not.
Hillary Clinton delivered a serious speech castigating Trump yesterday, and made what I consider to be some serious points. I'm taking them from from MSNBC, but I listened to the speech and they are all in there... Clinton's quotes are in italics:
1. “I believe the person GOP nominated for president cannot do the job.”
That's an opinion (and stated as such), but I agree that Trump is not actually able to do the job of President. Conversely, one can hardly say that Clinton, a Senator from a large state and Secretary of State, is not generally qualified to be President.
2. “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes.”
Yes, no essentially thoughtless person ever should. And Trump has demonstrated that he does not think much. Asked what he had read lately, he couldn't even come up with a newspaper. He finally allowed "All's Quiet On The Western Front" which is something he might have read in high school.
3. “They’re not even really ideas, just a series of bizarre rants, personal feuds, and outright lies.”
True. Trump never says anything specific. He just makes unsupported claims to "do things".
4. After calling out Trump’s “nasty” tweets, Clinton said: “I’m willing to bet he’s writing a few right now.”
Trump did in fact tweet during the speech.
5. “I’ll leave it to the psychiatrists to explain [Trump’s] affection for tyrants.”
I have to agree. I've read enough about abnormal psychiatry to judge that. Trump loves dictators. He is one himself in his pond.
6. “There’s no risk of people losing their lives if you blow up a golf course deal, but it doesn’t work like that in world affairs.”
Clinton makes the very good point that failure is a constant among real estate developers that is not permissible on the world stage of international relations.
7. “Making Donald Trump our commander-in-chief would be a historic mistake.”
An opinion, but a valid one. Trump has said he would encourage more nations to build nuclear weapons (Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Japan). He actually does not understand what nuclear weapons can do today. A serious exchange of nuclear weapons would end human life.
8. “This isn’t reality television – this is actual reality.”
Trump does not see reality as you or I do. It is all about him. He thinks he can change the world after events occur. Well, that's how it works on TV or in Real Estate.
9. “[Trump’s} ideas aren’t just different – they are dangerously incoherent.”
Trump changes his mind daily. He denies what he says on video. He might not even KNOW he changes his mind daily. Such people are very very dangerous.
10. “Letting ISIS run wild, launching a nuclear attack, starting a ground war; these are all distinct possibilities” with Trump “in charge.”
Trump as variously said that ISIS is dangerous, that it is not, that they are a serious threat, that he could kill them easily, that we spend too much on our military and that we do not spend enough. Such daily changes in thinking is a sign of lunacy.
11. “It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”
Trump really is thin-skinned. He can't stand criticism. He is surrounded by "yes-men" and if they don't yell "YES" loud or fast enough, he fires them. He goes well, "Trumpish" about it. Children are like that. Teenagers are like that. Some adults are too, but most adults learn to control their emotions enough to maintain working relations with people who annoy them. Trump doesn't. He sues everyone who annoys him. He is involved in about 3500 lawsuits right now. What is he going to do with Putin, sue him? Threaten to cancel a casino project?
12. “I wonder if he even realizes he’s talking about nuclear war.”
Trump probably can't even imagine nuclear war. To him, it's just a "big bomb".
13. “If Donald gets his way, they’ll be celebrating in the Kremlin.”
Putin would eat Trump for lunch and still feel hungry. Trump depends on his lawyers to get his way. Putin doesn't care about lawyers. Neither does any other world leader, friendly or not.
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
US Presidential Campaign
Well, with the Indiana Primary results in, it looks like it will be Donald Trump as the Republican nominee and Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. And I don't see anyone mounting a credible 3rd party campaign.
That's too bad. I respect Clinton; breadth of experience, thoughtfulness, and a progressive approach suit me. I would have been OK with Sanders; I like him personally, I completely agree that money has too much influence in politics and sometimes some radical approaches are needed, but I just don't see him as "Manager of The Executive Branch". Hey, maybe he would have been a genious at it, but we will never know.
But Donald Trump deeply worries me. I don't mean for this to be a screed, but the man has more holes in his psyche than swiss cheese. He lies outrageously, he unashamedly repeats proven falsehoods, he makes promises that he could never keep, he detests almost everyone, he wants to start fights with both opposing and friendly nations, and he seems to have little concept of how government works (3 equal branches of government, constitutional restrictions, law in general, etc). He approves of torture as "effective", he wants MORE nations to have nuclear weapons, and he would expect the military to follow "illegal" orders.
Trump would make an excellent dictator in a small nation. He has openly admired Vladamir Putin and Benito Mussolini. Oddly, in a very dysfunctional small nation, he might even do some good. I don't think he is "evil", he's just sort of nuts. He wouldn't be vicious like many dictators and would probably forcibly implement some economic improvements. But that won't work in any developed democracy.
If Trump were elected, the Congress and Supreme Court would probably just block him out of governance for his single term, but even then he could probably cause enough confusion and chaos to damage the economy, destroy our international influence, and divide the nation domestically for a decade. Whatever he could effect, he would make worse.
This is not to say that Clinton would be the best President we have ever had. She would work unbelievably hard, bring in a lot of international good will, appoint qualified but not historic Supreme Court Justices, and improve many continuing domestic problems. But she isn't going to excite and stimulate the nation, and she isn't going to solve The Big Problems (but she sure won't make any of them worse).
This Presidential campaign will be best for political commentators and comedians. I saw one statement that the Republicans had 3 major candidates; the grandson of an immigrant (Trump), the son of immigrants (Rubio), and an actual immigrant (Cruz) all competing to claim to hate immigrants the most! Ah, c'mon, ya GOTTA laugh about THAT!
Another good one was that Sanders had a good motto ("Feel The Bern") but Clinton's was not as good ("Trudge Uphill").
I vote for Clinton without any hesitation. Experienced/hard-working/good intentions beat a lying/bullying/megalomaniac nutso EVERY time.
But this election may be the best argument against the 2 term limitation. I would gladly take a 3rd Obama term. Heck, I'd take a 3rd Bill Clinton term. But maybe that is just fear of uncertainty. I'll bet Hillary Clinton is going to be a good President (and I can hope, better).
The most hopeful possibility is that a Clinton victory over Trump is so overwhelming that the Democrats regain control over the Congress. I think that would be good for the nation in general terms. But also, that divided government is not working these days (with the "just say no to anything" Republicans) and at least it might be good to get SOMETHING done.
I know that a lot of you out there are Republicans. I used to be one too. I don't mean anything negative to Republicans in general. We need 2 functioning parties, competition of ideas is good, and the times in our history when one party has controlled government for too long have not been good.
This election suggests a blowout. I've experienced 2 of those. The Goldwater landslide defeat in 1964 and the McGovern landslide defeat in 1972. In fact my (50 page OMG it killed me writing it) senior political science paper compared the 2 campaigns. From opposite sides of the political spectrum, the nomination campaigns were surprisingly similar...
So, prediction: Clinton will get more Electoral College votes than Obama did, the Republican Party will finally (after 36 years) move toward the center, and the Democrats will stay where they are...
That's too bad. I respect Clinton; breadth of experience, thoughtfulness, and a progressive approach suit me. I would have been OK with Sanders; I like him personally, I completely agree that money has too much influence in politics and sometimes some radical approaches are needed, but I just don't see him as "Manager of The Executive Branch". Hey, maybe he would have been a genious at it, but we will never know.
But Donald Trump deeply worries me. I don't mean for this to be a screed, but the man has more holes in his psyche than swiss cheese. He lies outrageously, he unashamedly repeats proven falsehoods, he makes promises that he could never keep, he detests almost everyone, he wants to start fights with both opposing and friendly nations, and he seems to have little concept of how government works (3 equal branches of government, constitutional restrictions, law in general, etc). He approves of torture as "effective", he wants MORE nations to have nuclear weapons, and he would expect the military to follow "illegal" orders.
Trump would make an excellent dictator in a small nation. He has openly admired Vladamir Putin and Benito Mussolini. Oddly, in a very dysfunctional small nation, he might even do some good. I don't think he is "evil", he's just sort of nuts. He wouldn't be vicious like many dictators and would probably forcibly implement some economic improvements. But that won't work in any developed democracy.
If Trump were elected, the Congress and Supreme Court would probably just block him out of governance for his single term, but even then he could probably cause enough confusion and chaos to damage the economy, destroy our international influence, and divide the nation domestically for a decade. Whatever he could effect, he would make worse.
This is not to say that Clinton would be the best President we have ever had. She would work unbelievably hard, bring in a lot of international good will, appoint qualified but not historic Supreme Court Justices, and improve many continuing domestic problems. But she isn't going to excite and stimulate the nation, and she isn't going to solve The Big Problems (but she sure won't make any of them worse).
This Presidential campaign will be best for political commentators and comedians. I saw one statement that the Republicans had 3 major candidates; the grandson of an immigrant (Trump), the son of immigrants (Rubio), and an actual immigrant (Cruz) all competing to claim to hate immigrants the most! Ah, c'mon, ya GOTTA laugh about THAT!
Another good one was that Sanders had a good motto ("Feel The Bern") but Clinton's was not as good ("Trudge Uphill").
I vote for Clinton without any hesitation. Experienced/hard-working/good intentions beat a lying/bullying/megalomaniac nutso EVERY time.
But this election may be the best argument against the 2 term limitation. I would gladly take a 3rd Obama term. Heck, I'd take a 3rd Bill Clinton term. But maybe that is just fear of uncertainty. I'll bet Hillary Clinton is going to be a good President (and I can hope, better).
The most hopeful possibility is that a Clinton victory over Trump is so overwhelming that the Democrats regain control over the Congress. I think that would be good for the nation in general terms. But also, that divided government is not working these days (with the "just say no to anything" Republicans) and at least it might be good to get SOMETHING done.
I know that a lot of you out there are Republicans. I used to be one too. I don't mean anything negative to Republicans in general. We need 2 functioning parties, competition of ideas is good, and the times in our history when one party has controlled government for too long have not been good.
This election suggests a blowout. I've experienced 2 of those. The Goldwater landslide defeat in 1964 and the McGovern landslide defeat in 1972. In fact my (50 page OMG it killed me writing it) senior political science paper compared the 2 campaigns. From opposite sides of the political spectrum, the nomination campaigns were surprisingly similar...
So, prediction: Clinton will get more Electoral College votes than Obama did, the Republican Party will finally (after 36 years) move toward the center, and the Democrats will stay where they are...
Saturday, March 5, 2016
Political Stuff
I'm worried about the Republican Party. When I could first vote in 1968, I thought Richard Nixon was extreme! His "Law and Order" platform against freedom of expression was scary. This was when there actually were liberal republicans (like Senator "Mac" Mathias of Maryland and most of the New England republicans). I considered myself a Republican back then (fiscally moderate and socially progressive).
Then came Reagan (aka "Ronald Ray-Guns" to my college and young professional crowd). He was scarier! Bush The Elder followed and he wasn't too bad (except that he once stated that he didn't think atheists should be considered legitimate citizens).
Then came Bush The Younger. I didn't agree with him much, but at least he seemed sane (although a lightweight thinker, an embarassing mangler of language, and apparently controlled by that extremophile Dick Cheney. "Mission Accomplished" and "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" will follow his administration down through history. His utter inability to judge foreign leaders (“I looked [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy" says it all.
And now there is The Donald. The scariest Republican yet... The man is deeply disturbed. A neutral psychiatrist would have a field day with him. Not that he is the only person like that, but he is a possible US President and that makes a WHOLE lot of difference. I would try to describe all the problems, but a cat-blogger I visit said it better than I could and in more detail. Read it HERE.
People think of Trump as a successful businessman. He isn't really. And I don't mean that he is a failed businessman. Its that he isn't really a "businessman". He is a marketing genius! He sells his name. He is like a Kardassian... When anyone looks inside his enterprises, all they find is his name. No substance, no product, no employment. He is like a terrible driver who leaves a long string of bad accidents behind him and escapes them all.
Demagogues like Trump come along in politics every so often. They usually fade soon enough before causing too much harm. And there ARE some signs that Trump is beginning to fade as well. He has lost a couple of State primaries he was expected to win and the next round of primaries are not suiting his style of ideology as well as the earlier ones. So he may fade like Ben Carson (another lunatic) did in the past couple months.
One can only hope...
But you know what scares me the most? His followers... I don't care too much if some individual politician has delusions of grandeur, makes bizarre unrealistic promises, is ammoral, unethical, and changes views as often as rock stars change outfits in concerts. It doesn't fool ME. But it sure fools his supporters. And there are a LOT of THEM...
It is THEIR existence that scares me, keeps me awake at night, and worries me while watching the news. No generally decent civilization ever fell overnight, but there was one day when they suddenly "weren't" anymore. The ancient Greeks were suddenly Roman subjects, the Romans were suddenly bending their knees to the Vandals, the Visigoths who created Spain were driven down by the conquering Moors, the Incas to the Spaniards, etc.
No country lasts forever, and democracies especially are fragile and need constant vigilance to survive. Demagogues are ever-present, needing only one opportunity to succeed.
Trump has to lose...
Then came Reagan (aka "Ronald Ray-Guns" to my college and young professional crowd). He was scarier! Bush The Elder followed and he wasn't too bad (except that he once stated that he didn't think atheists should be considered legitimate citizens).
Then came Bush The Younger. I didn't agree with him much, but at least he seemed sane (although a lightweight thinker, an embarassing mangler of language, and apparently controlled by that extremophile Dick Cheney. "Mission Accomplished" and "Weapons Of Mass Destruction" will follow his administration down through history. His utter inability to judge foreign leaders (“I looked [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy" says it all.
And now there is The Donald. The scariest Republican yet... The man is deeply disturbed. A neutral psychiatrist would have a field day with him. Not that he is the only person like that, but he is a possible US President and that makes a WHOLE lot of difference. I would try to describe all the problems, but a cat-blogger I visit said it better than I could and in more detail. Read it HERE.
People think of Trump as a successful businessman. He isn't really. And I don't mean that he is a failed businessman. Its that he isn't really a "businessman". He is a marketing genius! He sells his name. He is like a Kardassian... When anyone looks inside his enterprises, all they find is his name. No substance, no product, no employment. He is like a terrible driver who leaves a long string of bad accidents behind him and escapes them all.
Demagogues like Trump come along in politics every so often. They usually fade soon enough before causing too much harm. And there ARE some signs that Trump is beginning to fade as well. He has lost a couple of State primaries he was expected to win and the next round of primaries are not suiting his style of ideology as well as the earlier ones. So he may fade like Ben Carson (another lunatic) did in the past couple months.
One can only hope...
But you know what scares me the most? His followers... I don't care too much if some individual politician has delusions of grandeur, makes bizarre unrealistic promises, is ammoral, unethical, and changes views as often as rock stars change outfits in concerts. It doesn't fool ME. But it sure fools his supporters. And there are a LOT of THEM...
It is THEIR existence that scares me, keeps me awake at night, and worries me while watching the news. No generally decent civilization ever fell overnight, but there was one day when they suddenly "weren't" anymore. The ancient Greeks were suddenly Roman subjects, the Romans were suddenly bending their knees to the Vandals, the Visigoths who created Spain were driven down by the conquering Moors, the Incas to the Spaniards, etc.
No country lasts forever, and democracies especially are fragile and need constant vigilance to survive. Demagogues are ever-present, needing only one opportunity to succeed.
Trump has to lose...
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Politics
I can't wait for the New Hampshire primary results on Tuesday! I'll admit that I am not a "first-tier" political junkie like the professionals and not a second-tier junkie like the political talking heads on TV. But I watch political discussion shows on TV most all evening after dinner (and with one or more cats on my lap).
For once, the primaries of both major parties are fascinating! The debate between Clinton and Sanders Thursday night was amazing. I don't think I have ever seen dabates where the 2 serious candidates actually respect each other (but have to create differences between them) like this before. I can almost imagine them sitting down together and saying "oh you got me on X subject" and the other saying "but you had a real good response on subject Y".
Both Clinton and Sanders want to win, desperately. But they remind me of 2 chessplayers who are friends competing in a tournament. One will lose, but both respect the other.
The Republican primaries are a whole other kettle of fish. I think they all really do hate each other. OK, maybe a couple get along, but it is really a cage match of desperate candidates.
No one likes Cruz. From everything I read, he is not only bipartisanly destested among his fellow male and female Senators, he is universally detested among almost all politicians. And among most professional political observers. That takes real effort!
Trump is beyond belief. His inaccurate claims in every speech astound the fact-checkers, baffle analysts, and convince many observers that his followers are facists, communists, AND anarchists. I have seen his type before in my political and history studies in college; the results are NEVER good. He claims things that never happened and stands by those statements when disproved. Even worse, he claims he would be a good President because he can negotiate. Seriously, Putin and most other world leaders would just obliterate him.
Ben Carson... What can you say about a person who thinks the egyptian pyramids were built by Jewish slaves to store grain? The pyramids weren't built by Jewish slaves (archeology proves that) and the pyramids are nearly solid stone (no place to store grain). Carson is a brilliantly trained neurosurgeon, but other than that he is a raving lunatic. Also wants a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Which would have prevented us from fighting WWI, WWII, building the US Highways, and fighting the Cold War with the Soviets.
Chris Christie; Schoolyard bully. Statewide embarrassment. Blowhard. Would be the "Donald Trump" of the campaign if The Donald wasn't in it.
Marco Rubio. Probably the Republican candidate eventually. The 3 main parts of the Republican triad (Evangicals, Wall Street, and Social Conservatives) will likely supress their gag reflexes and accept him as "most possible to win".
JEB! With the Republicans livid about a "Clinton Dynasty", they can hardly nominate a 3rd Bush. Besides, JEB! IS a rather low energy candidate. Can you name ANY program he wants to implement? On the other hand, he is probably the most moderate of the remaining Republican candidates, and in a contested convention could be the "reluctant but generally acceptable electable choice". So JEB!'s plan is to be there at the end as "least unlikable".
John Kasich... When I heard the things he did in Ohio in the late 90s, I thought he was the farthest Right anyone could be. Now he is just average. And now he almost sounds reasonable. But he doesn't have a good campaign going. No money = no campaign future.
Carly Fiorina - Republicans don't like female leaders. Sarah Palin was widely regarded as a horrible decision of the McCain campaign (as in "OMG, what if McCain dies). Fiorina has a history as a business CEO, but it is attackable for failure. Plus, she has no particular agenda other than CEO experience and those who gravitate to business leaders see Trump as far more successful.
For once, the primaries of both major parties are fascinating! The debate between Clinton and Sanders Thursday night was amazing. I don't think I have ever seen dabates where the 2 serious candidates actually respect each other (but have to create differences between them) like this before. I can almost imagine them sitting down together and saying "oh you got me on X subject" and the other saying "but you had a real good response on subject Y".
Both Clinton and Sanders want to win, desperately. But they remind me of 2 chessplayers who are friends competing in a tournament. One will lose, but both respect the other.
The Republican primaries are a whole other kettle of fish. I think they all really do hate each other. OK, maybe a couple get along, but it is really a cage match of desperate candidates.
No one likes Cruz. From everything I read, he is not only bipartisanly destested among his fellow male and female Senators, he is universally detested among almost all politicians. And among most professional political observers. That takes real effort!
Trump is beyond belief. His inaccurate claims in every speech astound the fact-checkers, baffle analysts, and convince many observers that his followers are facists, communists, AND anarchists. I have seen his type before in my political and history studies in college; the results are NEVER good. He claims things that never happened and stands by those statements when disproved. Even worse, he claims he would be a good President because he can negotiate. Seriously, Putin and most other world leaders would just obliterate him.
Ben Carson... What can you say about a person who thinks the egyptian pyramids were built by Jewish slaves to store grain? The pyramids weren't built by Jewish slaves (archeology proves that) and the pyramids are nearly solid stone (no place to store grain). Carson is a brilliantly trained neurosurgeon, but other than that he is a raving lunatic. Also wants a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Which would have prevented us from fighting WWI, WWII, building the US Highways, and fighting the Cold War with the Soviets.
Chris Christie; Schoolyard bully. Statewide embarrassment. Blowhard. Would be the "Donald Trump" of the campaign if The Donald wasn't in it.
Marco Rubio. Probably the Republican candidate eventually. The 3 main parts of the Republican triad (Evangicals, Wall Street, and Social Conservatives) will likely supress their gag reflexes and accept him as "most possible to win".
JEB! With the Republicans livid about a "Clinton Dynasty", they can hardly nominate a 3rd Bush. Besides, JEB! IS a rather low energy candidate. Can you name ANY program he wants to implement? On the other hand, he is probably the most moderate of the remaining Republican candidates, and in a contested convention could be the "reluctant but generally acceptable electable choice". So JEB!'s plan is to be there at the end as "least unlikable".
John Kasich... When I heard the things he did in Ohio in the late 90s, I thought he was the farthest Right anyone could be. Now he is just average. And now he almost sounds reasonable. But he doesn't have a good campaign going. No money = no campaign future.
Carly Fiorina - Republicans don't like female leaders. Sarah Palin was widely regarded as a horrible decision of the McCain campaign (as in "OMG, what if McCain dies). Fiorina has a history as a business CEO, but it is attackable for failure. Plus, she has no particular agenda other than CEO experience and those who gravitate to business leaders see Trump as far more successful.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Weird Political Year
I majored in Government and Politics at U of MD, so I do really get into the details of campaigns, polling, and debates. Not directly involved in any though. Just interested. So I think of what might happen.
And I supported McGovern in 1972 and he got wiped in that election, so maybe what do I know? LOL! Good thing I didn't make a career of it. But there ARE a few things about it that I am good at. Well, exremists usually DO lose big...
1. Polling questions - You can write polling questions to get about any response you want. Good pollsters work very hard to stay neutral, bad ones write the questions to get the replies they desire.
Consider 2 questions. One poll asks "Of the 3 leading candidates for Party X, which do you prefer"? The other asks "Of the 3 leading candidates, which would you go vote for"? Those seem about the same, but they aren't. One asks preferences and the other asks about the action of voting. Many people have preferences, but only half the people actually vote.
So pollsters can affect the results by asking questions various ways and by deciding who they poll.
An example. If you ask old people in assisted-living houses who they prefer, you get one result. If you ask college students, you get another. If you ask people who are at home in houses on workdays, you get yet a different result. Same for calling people. Landline telephone owners have different views than smart phone owners. Even landline phone owners can be different. Those who are awake at 8 am are different from those who are awake at midnight.
Even worse is when pollsters ask "leading questions". Like "Candidate X wants to weaken our military forces. Do you think that is good or bad"?
Well, of course no one wants that. A more neutral question would be "Should tax money be applied more to military spending or to economic development"? Even better is a list of things money should be spend on and the pollee chooses.
2. Voting experience - Polling people who routinely vote is different from polling people who normally don't. Both can have strong preferences, but if you don't vote, your preference doesn't matter. And oddly enough, excited groups of supporters who routinely haven't voted in the past will usually not vote when it matters. They just have "others things to do that day". Or they feel uncomfortable doing something new to them (voting).
3. Voting accessibility - It matters how easy it is to vote. I know that from personal experience. When I first moved here, the voting line in the local school was 4 hours long and I saw people just giving up and leaving. They had other things they needed to do. Now, my voting place has no line and I am in and out in 10 minutes. Same number of voters, but more places. That affects voting. When voting is made harder in some places, it affects who can afford the time.
4. Ease of voting - When I vote, no one questions my identity. I could prove who I am easily enough. But not everyone can. Even legitimate voters in some places get challenged (unlike me - older white male). When I was single and in college, I had to drive 60 miles home to vote. But I could and did. So I skipped a half day of classes. But what if you had to take 3 buses for an hour and walk a mile when you had kids to care for or a job that demanded you work all the voting hours? That is the deliberate arrangement in some places.
I could go on, but I hope you see my point. Polls have errors, supporters don't show up, voters have easier or harder times voting. No one knows the results until they are counted.
And pollsters have been famously wrong. Dewey Defeats Truman is most famous, but there are others. We young Baby-Boomers were assured that McGovern would beat Nixon in 1972, but we didn't go and vote like the pollsters thought we would (I did). In 2008, The consensus of 7 polls taken just before the NH primary had Obama winning by 8.2 percent in the voting. Instead, Clinton beat Obama by a 39 to 36 percent margin. So the polls were off by a staggering 11 percent. And THOSE were a simple one-on-one poll taken among "likely voters"! And the list goes on, and on, and on...
You just never know about polls. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over til it's over"...
Mark
And I supported McGovern in 1972 and he got wiped in that election, so maybe what do I know? LOL! Good thing I didn't make a career of it. But there ARE a few things about it that I am good at. Well, exremists usually DO lose big...
1. Polling questions - You can write polling questions to get about any response you want. Good pollsters work very hard to stay neutral, bad ones write the questions to get the replies they desire.
Consider 2 questions. One poll asks "Of the 3 leading candidates for Party X, which do you prefer"? The other asks "Of the 3 leading candidates, which would you go vote for"? Those seem about the same, but they aren't. One asks preferences and the other asks about the action of voting. Many people have preferences, but only half the people actually vote.
So pollsters can affect the results by asking questions various ways and by deciding who they poll.
An example. If you ask old people in assisted-living houses who they prefer, you get one result. If you ask college students, you get another. If you ask people who are at home in houses on workdays, you get yet a different result. Same for calling people. Landline telephone owners have different views than smart phone owners. Even landline phone owners can be different. Those who are awake at 8 am are different from those who are awake at midnight.
Even worse is when pollsters ask "leading questions". Like "Candidate X wants to weaken our military forces. Do you think that is good or bad"?
Well, of course no one wants that. A more neutral question would be "Should tax money be applied more to military spending or to economic development"? Even better is a list of things money should be spend on and the pollee chooses.
2. Voting experience - Polling people who routinely vote is different from polling people who normally don't. Both can have strong preferences, but if you don't vote, your preference doesn't matter. And oddly enough, excited groups of supporters who routinely haven't voted in the past will usually not vote when it matters. They just have "others things to do that day". Or they feel uncomfortable doing something new to them (voting).
3. Voting accessibility - It matters how easy it is to vote. I know that from personal experience. When I first moved here, the voting line in the local school was 4 hours long and I saw people just giving up and leaving. They had other things they needed to do. Now, my voting place has no line and I am in and out in 10 minutes. Same number of voters, but more places. That affects voting. When voting is made harder in some places, it affects who can afford the time.
4. Ease of voting - When I vote, no one questions my identity. I could prove who I am easily enough. But not everyone can. Even legitimate voters in some places get challenged (unlike me - older white male). When I was single and in college, I had to drive 60 miles home to vote. But I could and did. So I skipped a half day of classes. But what if you had to take 3 buses for an hour and walk a mile when you had kids to care for or a job that demanded you work all the voting hours? That is the deliberate arrangement in some places.
I could go on, but I hope you see my point. Polls have errors, supporters don't show up, voters have easier or harder times voting. No one knows the results until they are counted.
And pollsters have been famously wrong. Dewey Defeats Truman is most famous, but there are others. We young Baby-Boomers were assured that McGovern would beat Nixon in 1972, but we didn't go and vote like the pollsters thought we would (I did). In 2008, The consensus of 7 polls taken just before the NH primary had Obama winning by 8.2 percent in the voting. Instead, Clinton beat Obama by a 39 to 36 percent margin. So the polls were off by a staggering 11 percent. And THOSE were a simple one-on-one poll taken among "likely voters"! And the list goes on, and on, and on...
You just never know about polls. As Yogi Berra said, "It ain't over til it's over"...
Mark
Monday, December 14, 2015
Politics 3
About Ted Cruz:
Slick, Might be the smartest guy in the Republican list but that's not saying much.
But crazy...
Sen Cruz's statements are in Blue here. Fact-Checkers statements are in black...
"Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats."
False. The statement cherry-picks one partisan academic study.
"Under Barack Obama and the big government economy, the median wage for women has dropped $733."
The wages for women actually rose.
Slick, Might be the smartest guy in the Republican list but that's not saying much.
But crazy...
Sen Cruz's statements are in Blue here. Fact-Checkers statements are in black...
"Here’s the simple and undeniable fact: The overwhelming majority of violent criminals are Democrats."
False. The statement cherry-picks one partisan academic study.
"Under Barack Obama and the big government economy, the median wage for women has dropped $733."
The wages for women actually rose.
False, the percentage of Democrats relative to Republicans is higher than in 2008 and 2012.
False, there will be 150 international inspectors.
False, inspections will make it harder for Iran to produce nuclear weapons. Iran can't hide residual radioactivity.
Supreme Court rulings are binding on all States.
No evidence for this claim.
14 of 44 have been neither. For a serious US politician not to know such a basic fact suggests a lack of knowledge or deliberate lying.
The Constitution disagrees. There is no religious test in the Constitution, nor is there anything about sexual preferences.
Small businesses routinely fail. But they are not failing in record numbers.
The election results and exit polling results said otherwise.
The nominee had an MD from Yale.
No evidence found.
"Most" people have not.
2 Democratic votes out of 190 isn't "bi-partisan".
Never happened.
Never happened.
Statistics find the statement false.
Frequently false.
9% isn't double.
Sunday, December 13, 2015
Politics 2
About Ben Carson: It is obvious that talent at surgery has no connection to political or even general sense. Carson said that the Egyptian pryramids were used to store grain.
The Egyptian pyramids are almost entirely solid except for tiny channels leading to small burial chambers.
You have to be abominably stupid, moronic, idiotic, ignorant, foolish, dull, slow-witted, vacuous, imbecilic and doltish to even CONSIDER the idea that the pyramids could have been used to store anything.
But that's Carson. In MY opinion...
And there are Republicans who SUPPORT him to be our President?
The Egyptian pyramids are almost entirely solid except for tiny channels leading to small burial chambers.
You have to be abominably stupid, moronic, idiotic, ignorant, foolish, dull, slow-witted, vacuous, imbecilic and doltish to even CONSIDER the idea that the pyramids could have been used to store anything.
But that's Carson. In MY opinion...
And there are Republicans who SUPPORT him to be our President?
Saturday, December 12, 2015
Politics
You just have to be fascinated by someone like Donald Trump. Successful, ambitious, and a total demagogue. More dangerous than Sen McCarthy, of Communist-Baiting infamy in the 1950s.
Italics, mine...
Who else could say or believe these things and not utterly humiliated and attacked?
1. Trump accused the Mexican government of sending its criminals and rapists across the border.
No evidence exists that illegal immigrants are more criminal in other ways than average. In fact, the history of immigrants to the US has been those of the bravest, most ambitious, and willing to learn a new way of life.
2. Trump knocked Sen John McCain of doing too little to help veterans, knocked the senator in July, first disputing that he was a hero, then declaring: "He's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK?"
This is utterly disgusting. Senator McCain is a hero by means of his general military service and by fighting his captivity. The idea that one is a failure by being captured in warfare is depraved and UnAmerican. Some of the bravest fighters have been captured sometimes. When you push the envelope, you accept greater risk. Trump disses all captured soldiers.
3. Trump repeatedly has questioned Kelly's professionalism and went as far as to tell CNN that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever".
For Trump to "blame" women for "bleeding uncleanliness" is harking back to primitive superstitions and general non-understanding of routine human bodily processes.
4. Flip-flopping is trouble for most politicians, but Trump has done it merrily and with apparent impunity. He has shrugged off his old support for abortion rights and a single-payer health care system, and his former identification with the Democratic Party, with that-was-then-this-is-now nonchalance.
Trump has his wet finger in the wind of change. He criticizes others for changing their minds when new facts are learned, but never admits to his frequent changes in views himself.
5. To Donald Trump, there are two kinds of people in the world: good negotiators and bad negotiators. Basically everyone except Donald Trump and his "guys" fall into the latter category.
Trumps has often failed at businesses at public and investor expense. But unlike the Wizard Of Oz, he has kept the curtain shut. Trump know fakes. It takes one to know one.
6. He'll build a wall between the U.S.-Mexico border to keep undocumented immigrants out — and make Mexico pay for it (somehow).
Trump is proposing that Mexico build a wall to keep it's people in. Something that the USA would never tolerate itself. A rule of civilized nations is that anyone has the right to leave.
7. About China: "Listen, you mother(bleep), we're going to tax you 25 percent."
Demagoguery, pure and simple... Bad economics... 18th century mercantilism... Not how a serious leader deals with international economics.
8. Denigrates the USA at every chance: "I have great respect for Mexico — their leaders are too smart — they’re killing us at the border and they’re killing us with trade. You know, Mexico in a certain way, is the new China. "When did we beat Japan at anything?"
Mexico is a 2nd tier economy and tstruggling and their politics are generally barely moderately democratic at best (but improving) . Japan's economy has been stagnant for 20 years. Trump apparently does not know this. He is thinking 30 years ago. That kind of out-of-date thinking is not what the US needs in a President.
9. "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault."
This is how Trump talks to people who really are stupider than he is. He is smart in a limited way. He has really learned how to browbeat less talented people in commercial negotiations. But that doesn't mean he has any specific intelligence. What he HAS is a talent, and there is a difference. But his general IQ doesn't seem higher than average. As a typical real estate shuskster, he makes claims he can't prove.
10. "Hillary Clinton is the "worst secretary of state in the history of our country."
Ranker listed the best-to-worst Secretaries Of State. Hilary Clinton is ranked 17th best of 66.
11. "I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me."
Never mind that the Great Wall of the Chinese (to which he alludes) failed completely most times... Walls to keep people out or keep people in are both bad failures. But, claiming to have built walls, what walls has he actually built either way anywhere?
12. "I build great buildings all over the world. I would have Mexico pay for it. Believe me, they will pay for it."
Specify your plan. Mexico doesn't seem to be impressed.
Italics, mine...
Who else could say or believe these things and not utterly humiliated and attacked?
1. Trump accused the Mexican government of sending its criminals and rapists across the border.
No evidence exists that illegal immigrants are more criminal in other ways than average. In fact, the history of immigrants to the US has been those of the bravest, most ambitious, and willing to learn a new way of life.
2. Trump knocked Sen John McCain of doing too little to help veterans, knocked the senator in July, first disputing that he was a hero, then declaring: "He's a war hero 'cause he was captured. I like people that weren't captured, OK?"
This is utterly disgusting. Senator McCain is a hero by means of his general military service and by fighting his captivity. The idea that one is a failure by being captured in warfare is depraved and UnAmerican. Some of the bravest fighters have been captured sometimes. When you push the envelope, you accept greater risk. Trump disses all captured soldiers.
3. Trump repeatedly has questioned Kelly's professionalism and went as far as to tell CNN that she had "blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever".
For Trump to "blame" women for "bleeding uncleanliness" is harking back to primitive superstitions and general non-understanding of routine human bodily processes.
4. Flip-flopping is trouble for most politicians, but Trump has done it merrily and with apparent impunity. He has shrugged off his old support for abortion rights and a single-payer health care system, and his former identification with the Democratic Party, with that-was-then-this-is-now nonchalance.
Trump has his wet finger in the wind of change. He criticizes others for changing their minds when new facts are learned, but never admits to his frequent changes in views himself.
5. To Donald Trump, there are two kinds of people in the world: good negotiators and bad negotiators. Basically everyone except Donald Trump and his "guys" fall into the latter category.
Trumps has often failed at businesses at public and investor expense. But unlike the Wizard Of Oz, he has kept the curtain shut. Trump know fakes. It takes one to know one.
6. He'll build a wall between the U.S.-Mexico border to keep undocumented immigrants out — and make Mexico pay for it (somehow).
Trump is proposing that Mexico build a wall to keep it's people in. Something that the USA would never tolerate itself. A rule of civilized nations is that anyone has the right to leave.
7. About China: "Listen, you mother(bleep), we're going to tax you 25 percent."
Demagoguery, pure and simple... Bad economics... 18th century mercantilism... Not how a serious leader deals with international economics.
8. Denigrates the USA at every chance: "I have great respect for Mexico — their leaders are too smart — they’re killing us at the border and they’re killing us with trade. You know, Mexico in a certain way, is the new China. "When did we beat Japan at anything?"
Mexico is a 2nd tier economy and tstruggling and their politics are generally barely moderately democratic at best (but improving) . Japan's economy has been stagnant for 20 years. Trump apparently does not know this. He is thinking 30 years ago. That kind of out-of-date thinking is not what the US needs in a President.
9. "Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest — and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure, it's not your fault."
This is how Trump talks to people who really are stupider than he is. He is smart in a limited way. He has really learned how to browbeat less talented people in commercial negotiations. But that doesn't mean he has any specific intelligence. What he HAS is a talent, and there is a difference. But his general IQ doesn't seem higher than average. As a typical real estate shuskster, he makes claims he can't prove.
10. "Hillary Clinton is the "worst secretary of state in the history of our country."
Ranker listed the best-to-worst Secretaries Of State. Hilary Clinton is ranked 17th best of 66.
11. "I will build a great wall — and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me."
Never mind that the Great Wall of the Chinese (to which he alludes) failed completely most times... Walls to keep people out or keep people in are both bad failures. But, claiming to have built walls, what walls has he actually built either way anywhere?
12. "I build great buildings all over the world. I would have Mexico pay for it. Believe me, they will pay for it."
Specify your plan. Mexico doesn't seem to be impressed.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Presidential Candidates, 2
Angel AbbyGrace asked "Are you remembering the "Russian Reset" with Hill?"
Well, I did have to google "Russian Reset" and it WAS kind of funny. Something about a mistranslated American word into Russian on a symbolic fake "reset button gadget" (and noting it had been signed off on as accurate by the Russian embassy).
But I wasn't arguing politics. I was thinking about the current presidential candidates and who could stand up among world leaders facing someone like Putin.
There are darn few of the current crop that could. It's awful! Marco Rubio comes across like the intern designated to bring the serious leaders their coffee. Jeb! is a wimp. Trump would be out-bullied by Putin. Walker and Kasich would be dismissed as bullying teacher unions (though at least Putin would like THAT!
And I'm not being mean to just Republicans. Politically, I'm more aligned with Bernie Sanders; I'd love to talk to him all day. But he is basically a mayor of a small place. He has no executive or international experience. O'Malley was a great Governor of a minor State (and for all I know,he could be a very good Chief Executive in calm prosperous times).
It is just that I can't find anyone but Hillary Clinton who could look eye to eye with someone like Putin and not flinch. She's hard as nails. And I don't mean fingernails...
To prove the point that I am politically unbiased regarding "strength" of presidents, who would I take today from the past?
Teddy! (Roosevelt, not Kennedy), Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan... Yeah, some democrats and some republicans. Like I said, I'm not arguing politics here (yet).
So if I wanted someone from the current crop of people desiring to become President, who would I want? Well, aside from ME of course... I would want Hillary Clinton. She just has the personality to handle the job. Seriously, you don't WANT some inexperienced and stupid "hey, I might actually get lucky and win" type as President here.
I remember seeing some political cartoon showing some guy being sworn into office and then in the 2nd panel he says to his political advisors, "OK, so what do I do NOW?". THAT'S SCARY, and that's what I'm afraid most of the candidates WOULD do.
There are too many people who desperately WANT that job, but too few who really seem to have any idea what to DO with it.
Clinton's politics don't align with mine perfectly. And yes, she is a politician and bit of a slippery one at that. But at the top job, experience and talent matter. Few leaders are "nice" or "clean".
At the risk of echoing Donald ("I went Wharton, so I'm smart") Trump, I have to say I have a degree in Political Science. I study this stuff to this day. We are far past the times when we elected successful Generals because they knew how to manage a whole army. World affairs are bigger than armies now.
What a US President needs is the skill to manage international chaos. The only candidate I see who could do that is Hillary Clinton.
Well, I did have to google "Russian Reset" and it WAS kind of funny. Something about a mistranslated American word into Russian on a symbolic fake "reset button gadget" (and noting it had been signed off on as accurate by the Russian embassy).
But I wasn't arguing politics. I was thinking about the current presidential candidates and who could stand up among world leaders facing someone like Putin.
There are darn few of the current crop that could. It's awful! Marco Rubio comes across like the intern designated to bring the serious leaders their coffee. Jeb! is a wimp. Trump would be out-bullied by Putin. Walker and Kasich would be dismissed as bullying teacher unions (though at least Putin would like THAT!
And I'm not being mean to just Republicans. Politically, I'm more aligned with Bernie Sanders; I'd love to talk to him all day. But he is basically a mayor of a small place. He has no executive or international experience. O'Malley was a great Governor of a minor State (and for all I know,he could be a very good Chief Executive in calm prosperous times).
It is just that I can't find anyone but Hillary Clinton who could look eye to eye with someone like Putin and not flinch. She's hard as nails. And I don't mean fingernails...
To prove the point that I am politically unbiased regarding "strength" of presidents, who would I take today from the past?
Teddy! (Roosevelt, not Kennedy), Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Reagan... Yeah, some democrats and some republicans. Like I said, I'm not arguing politics here (yet).
So if I wanted someone from the current crop of people desiring to become President, who would I want? Well, aside from ME of course... I would want Hillary Clinton. She just has the personality to handle the job. Seriously, you don't WANT some inexperienced and stupid "hey, I might actually get lucky and win" type as President here.
I remember seeing some political cartoon showing some guy being sworn into office and then in the 2nd panel he says to his political advisors, "OK, so what do I do NOW?". THAT'S SCARY, and that's what I'm afraid most of the candidates WOULD do.
There are too many people who desperately WANT that job, but too few who really seem to have any idea what to DO with it.
Clinton's politics don't align with mine perfectly. And yes, she is a politician and bit of a slippery one at that. But at the top job, experience and talent matter. Few leaders are "nice" or "clean".
At the risk of echoing Donald ("I went Wharton, so I'm smart") Trump, I have to say I have a degree in Political Science. I study this stuff to this day. We are far past the times when we elected successful Generals because they knew how to manage a whole army. World affairs are bigger than armies now.
What a US President needs is the skill to manage international chaos. The only candidate I see who could do that is Hillary Clinton.
Presidential Candidates
The Republicans...
Donald Trump - Middle school bully, with brains to match.
Ben Carson - The quiet crazy guy who thinks everyone is either a Nazi or a slaveowner. I think maybe we are all both. In his mind..
Ted Cruz - I could be both of those guys above, really. Let me try harder...
Marco Rubio - Sure I look like I'm 20, but I can talk that way too. Oh wait, is that the prob?
Jeb! - Hey, never mind if I don't mention the last name, I'm The Next One. You all know it, right? Unless you don't want me to mention I'm a Bush.. Then I'm not. Dubya says not too, so...
The Democrats...
Hillary! - I'm the ONE right? I mean we all agreed on that after the last go-around. The Black GUY first and THEN its my turn... Um, OUR turn, Right? It's my turn now? And you get Bill back for a 3rd and 4th turn... He's not dead yet.
Bernie Sanders - Look you want an angry guy who is usually right (well leftist if ya know what I mean), you have ME! Never mind that I probably couldn't manage a candy store, I'm always right. (er, left) And I yell a lot, so that proves I care.
Martin O'Malley - I talk nice, I'm from Maryland, I'm classical liberal, I'm not Spiro Agnew. What more do you want?
******************
What we are missing here is the person who can meet with Putin and say "I'll punch ya into the middle of next week" convincingly. And with a plan for that...
Putin would laugh at Trump, remind Jeb! that his whole family are wimps, ask Rubio if he shaves yet, and tell Sanders that he isn't the socialist he imagines he is.
But he wouldn't know what to say to Hillary Rodham Clinton... She's unflappable, unstoppable, and unbreakable...
Donald Trump - Middle school bully, with brains to match.
Ben Carson - The quiet crazy guy who thinks everyone is either a Nazi or a slaveowner. I think maybe we are all both. In his mind..
Ted Cruz - I could be both of those guys above, really. Let me try harder...
Marco Rubio - Sure I look like I'm 20, but I can talk that way too. Oh wait, is that the prob?
Jeb! - Hey, never mind if I don't mention the last name, I'm The Next One. You all know it, right? Unless you don't want me to mention I'm a Bush.. Then I'm not. Dubya says not too, so...
The Democrats...
Hillary! - I'm the ONE right? I mean we all agreed on that after the last go-around. The Black GUY first and THEN its my turn... Um, OUR turn, Right? It's my turn now? And you get Bill back for a 3rd and 4th turn... He's not dead yet.
Bernie Sanders - Look you want an angry guy who is usually right (well leftist if ya know what I mean), you have ME! Never mind that I probably couldn't manage a candy store, I'm always right. (er, left) And I yell a lot, so that proves I care.
Martin O'Malley - I talk nice, I'm from Maryland, I'm classical liberal, I'm not Spiro Agnew. What more do you want?
******************
What we are missing here is the person who can meet with Putin and say "I'll punch ya into the middle of next week" convincingly. And with a plan for that...
Putin would laugh at Trump, remind Jeb! that his whole family are wimps, ask Rubio if he shaves yet, and tell Sanders that he isn't the socialist he imagines he is.
But he wouldn't know what to say to Hillary Rodham Clinton... She's unflappable, unstoppable, and unbreakable...
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Politics and Congressional Inquisitions...
I watched a lot of the Congressional Benghazi Inquisition today. It was extreme and partisan.
I'm pretty much oriented to facts (to the point where if the side I agree with does a bad job being factual and engages in evasion and emotional responses I won't think they did a good job.
Hillary Clinton did a good job today. After 11 HOURS responding to partisan questions, many of which had no logical connection to the sad events at Benghazi, she did very well. And let me say that as someone who participated in chess tournaments when younger, I know something about the pain of just sitting for hours at a time. It is called "sitzfleisch". German, meaning literally "sitting on the flesh". It is a requirement for playing long chess games. I used to have it. Today, I am a pacer.
But Hillary sat, and listened, and sat, and listened. Sometimes she could get to give an answer. Mostly, she had to just sit and listen to Republican speeches, some of which applied to Benghazi but most didn't.
So who won the Republican Benghazi debate? Hillary. The lozenge did it... I'm not joking. When Hillary finally had to take a lozenge out of her purse after about 8 (9, 10?) hours into the inquisition, she had won. It meant she had spoken more than even a professional politician could be expected to manage.
And the Republicans hadn't been able to find she had done anything wrong about the sad events in Benghazi in 11 hours of questions...
I'm pretty much oriented to facts (to the point where if the side I agree with does a bad job being factual and engages in evasion and emotional responses I won't think they did a good job.
Hillary Clinton did a good job today. After 11 HOURS responding to partisan questions, many of which had no logical connection to the sad events at Benghazi, she did very well. And let me say that as someone who participated in chess tournaments when younger, I know something about the pain of just sitting for hours at a time. It is called "sitzfleisch". German, meaning literally "sitting on the flesh". It is a requirement for playing long chess games. I used to have it. Today, I am a pacer.
But Hillary sat, and listened, and sat, and listened. Sometimes she could get to give an answer. Mostly, she had to just sit and listen to Republican speeches, some of which applied to Benghazi but most didn't.
So who won the Republican Benghazi debate? Hillary. The lozenge did it... I'm not joking. When Hillary finally had to take a lozenge out of her purse after about 8 (9, 10?) hours into the inquisition, she had won. It meant she had spoken more than even a professional politician could be expected to manage.
And the Republicans hadn't been able to find she had done anything wrong about the sad events in Benghazi in 11 hours of questions...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I think I have it figured out now. I needed basic frame strength (cubes) plus top support (arches with a ridgepole) for shedding rain and s... -
I like to plant Pansies in the Fall. I replace the dead Tomatos and deck pot flowers with them most years. Best deal I found was 12-packs ...