Should Our Choice of President Really Depend on the Debates?

Should Our Choice of President Really Depend on the Debates?

The judgement of the debates will largely have two camps, reinforcing whichever candidate you are already strongly backing, since the candidates will stress their main lines of attraction. Those who have not followed over a year of total cable news and newspaper coverage have still been more exposed to stories about the candidates. They have been the main reality show all year.

Much is being written about the strategy for the debates. But should we really choose the next President based on gaffes, zingers, insults, length of bathroom break, retorts, choice of questions or attacks by interviewers, arguing who deserves time to respond and who continually runs over, or who sweats, or drinks water, or coughs? Should we choose the President based on fact checking, instant calls of distortion or not, or the luck of the draw of which issues the candidates prepared for?

Each of the candidates have given detailed talks of their approach to the issues, as well as ads for their hotels, and traded charges. There is no time in the short debates with shared time to even cover a minuscule fraction of these. The details are on their websites.

Trump has gotten billions of dollars worth of TV time on cable shows. The partisan cable networks of MSNBC and Fox have covered their candidates and charges against the other in great detail.  The Conventions were were shown for a week along with pre and post rehash and commentaries.  The liberal press and the conservative press and magazines have thoroughly examined the candidates and issues. Conservative talk radio has given complete coverage of their side. Hundreds of millions of dollars of TV ads have and will appear, especially in swing states. Mailers and phone calls will go into effect. We will all be anxiously awaiting for Election Day to arrive. In the meantime, we have to study ballot issues and choose between state and local candidates.

When you think of what the President does day to day, debates never occur in their duties, and how good a debater they are will have no relevance to their effectiveness as President. Treaties that the President might sign have been negotiated by diplomats over months or years. Meetings with foreign leaders mainly are statements of positions, and do not settle issues in a debate format. The President usually addresses Congress only in the well prepared State of the Union messages, without debate, and without having a moderator or taking question. It is up to the 535 CongressIonal members to do their own debating, usually to empty chambers.

In the old days, there used to be an equal time rule from the FCC on the time of coverage of a candidates interviews and speeches. A return to that would be a great return to fairness, especially when one candidate is a TV celebrity who’s crazy rallies and statements attract enormous TV coverage, and the other candidate’s presentations on issues do not.

Posted in 2016 Election, Clinton, Donald Trump, Politics | Leave a comment

Trump Makes a Political Football League Out of the Supreme Court Nominations

Trump Makes a Political Football League Out of the Supreme Court Nominations

Donald Trump and Republicans have been arguing that Trump deserves your vote to get a conservative Supreme Court Justice that will also reflect fundamentalist religious issues. Besides replacing Justice Antonin Scalia, there are three elderly Justices that also may need to be replaced in the next four or eight years. It doesn’t pay at this date to observe that Justices are not supposed to be political appointments, but just superior constitutional judges.

Trump’s campaign has taken the unusual step of adding another eleven justice candidates to the previous eleven that he has suggested. These new justice candidates are essentially all listed to attract voters from swing states and to expand his campaign’s outreach to women and minorities. We will document this in detail below. This is very cynical of the Trump campaign to make the Justice positions and candidates all into enough political footballs to make up a league.

It is common politics that when you are citing a federal facility or project, you invite proposals from major states and dispersed companies that can host the facility or project. Even after the project is to be cited, you guarantee that the work will be farmed out to many states. That way you get large nationwide political support for a facility or project that eventually will be cited mainly in one state and location. Trump is doing the same thing with the serious considerations of Justices. Several of these candidates are not on the Federal benches, but just state Supreme Courts, which is unusual.

To the description of the candidate, we have added the probabilities of the Presidential candidates for winning the swing state of their origin. We take the probabilities from the forecasting site 538 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com. For state Presidential forecasts, probabilities below 90% are not considered as certain. The total probabilities nationwide are very close with Secretary Clinton at 61.9%, versus Donald Trump at 38.1%.

We start out with the largest toss up state, Florida, with 29 electoral votes, currently at 48.9% for Clinton versus 51.1% for Trump. Trump has already covered a close race in this state by supporting its Attorney General with a $25,000 donation from Trump’s charity (which was illegal), and hosting a fund raiser at his estate. Trump chose two candidates from Florida: Charles Kanady of the Florida Supreme Court; and Federico Moreno, an Hispanic judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, from Caracas, Venezuela.

Next we come to the swing state of Ohio, with 18 electoral votes. Trump has gained the lead in Ohio, leading by 57.7% to Clinton’s 42.3% probability of winning. Trump has chosen candidate Jonathan Adler, a well known legal columnist and commenter from the Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland, Ohio.

Michigan has 16 electoral votes, which now has Clinton at 71.6% and Trump at 28.3% probability. Michigan is an auto making state in the Rust Belt. The Trump campaign has drafted a black Michigan Supreme Court justice Robert Young for their list.
Georgia also has 16 electoral votes, with Trump leading the probabilities by 79.0% to 21.0%. Trump has included Georgia Supreme Court justice Keith Blackwell.

Colorado has 9 electoral votes with Clinton having probability 70.0% and Trump 29.9%. Trump has included two justices of the Denver 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, Neil Gorsuch and Timothy Tymkovich.

Kentucky has 8 electoral votes, with Trump guaranteed by probability 97.6% to Clinton at 2.4%. Trump’s candidate is Amul Thapar, a South Asian, who is a federal trial judge, also an unusual position for a nominee.

Iowa has 6 electoral votes and Trump has the leading probability of 63.6% leaving Clinton with 36.3%. Trump’s candidate is Iowa Supreme Court justice Edward Mansfield.

Trump’s candidate from Utah is Sen. Mike Lee, who once criticized Trump. Trump has a sure thing there at 96.6% to Clinton’s only 3.1%.

Finally, Trump has added a woman justice to the list with Margaret A. Ryan of the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. This could add to the already strong lead that Trump has with the armed forces. It also is another sign of his campaign’s desire to become more inclusive of women.

Of the 11 new candidates that Trump has, 8 are from important swing states. He has also added a woman and three minority candidates among them.

Posted in 2016 Election, Clinton, Donald Trump, Politics, Supreme Court | Leave a comment

Trump: Sacrifice the Rights of the Many to Catch Very Few

Trump: Sacrifice the Rights of the Many to Catch Very Few

The series Star Trek often centered around Spock’s logic of sacrificing the few for the many, while Captain Kirk’s risking everyone and even sacrificing the Enterprise to pick up the few.

This is almost Trump’s willingness to scrap many of our constitutional rights and freedoms to save us from a few attackers. You have to contrast this from the fact that almost 90 people a day die from guns in the US, and Trump refuses to act on this, even in areas where the public favors it.

Trump has threatened even medical care to the perpetrator of the New York City attack, who can give us evidence to where he learned to build bombs, and how he got radicalized.

Trump is anxious to take away due process. He drops the right of innocence until proven guilty. He brags about being able to pre-classify a crime and defendant as requiring a military trial. Even combatants are required to receive medical care. We still don’t know who may have trained the accused, and no group has claimed him as a warrior. There have already been a couple of cases where identified perpetrators were found out to be false leads.

Update Sept. 21, just one day later:  Trump was asked how he could lessen black on black violence.  His answer:  Stop and Frisk, claiming it worked well in New York City.  He was apparently unaware that it was declared unconstitutional by a Federal Appeals court, since it targeted Blacks and Latinos.  After 700,000 stop and frisks a year, it was not found to be helpful.  This also violated Due Process.

In debates, Trump violated due process by claiming Gov. Chris Christie knew about the bridge closing. Chris Christie violated due process in his convention speech by implying that Clinton was guilty and calling for her jailing. At least now Trump is in accord with due process by not dropping Gov. Christie just because a prosecutor in court said that Christie knew about the bridge closing. Trump has been repeating the charge that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the Kennedy assignation, although there is no evidence of this.

The trouble with designing a multi-billion dollar exclusion and monitoring program is micro-examining every small terrorist incident and trying to abstract from it what profiling characteristics to apply. With Trump, the details don’t even have to match his two real targets of Muslims and Hispanics. He also attacks the few Syrian immigrants that we have accepted, even though none have been involved in terror in the US. He also exaggerates Clinton’s supposed plan to allow Syrian refugees in.

Trump has proposed extreme screening of new immigrants. With the latest case he would need extreme screening of citizens returning to the US. He also would need extreme screening of toddlers, and a program to figure out what they would do 30 years in the future. Instead of just screening permanent immigrants, shouldn’t all tourists be screened? Wouldn’t that end tourism? Many of the the US attacks are just committed by caucasian citizens who aren’t well adjusted.

Trump has again threatened freedom of the press saying a few sites publish bomb building information, while a free press really leads to exposing Trump’s lies and crooked business dealings.

When Trump focuses on the few ISIS related attacks in the US he purposely forgets the shooting up of the Planned Parenthood Office, church killings, church burnings, and the Oklahoma City bombing.

Trump and other Republicans’ focusing on Muslims violates religious freedoms and the right to assemble.

Trump ignores the necessity of completing gun purchasing screening to the Internet and at gun shows.. Guns have become the most deadly terrorist weapon.

Trump’s expensive and freedom annihilating attacks may stop a few mass terrorists, compared to 32,000 a year dying from guns.

Analyzing the recent terrorist acts, good old fashioned American semi-automatic guns have proven much easier to get and and to fire than bombs or knives, and much more deadly. Yet Trump will not mention barring people on the terrorist watch list from buying guns legally.

People worldwide are and will be dying in floods, starving from droughts, and crippled by disease carrying mosquitos, all of which will be increased by climate change. Trump denies climate change to get fossil fuel magnates’ contributions.

All recent Presidents, Governors, and Mayors have stated that if we give up our freedoms and live in fear, that the terrorists will have won. Yet this is just what Donald Trump wants us to do.

Posted in 2016 Election, Climate Change, Clinton, Donald Trump, Guns | Leave a comment

Trumponomics and Employment

Trumponomics and Employment

I am not the first to coin the word Trumponomics. I prefer it to Trump Economics, since “Economics” has the first syllable “Eco”, which these days means something that considers the environment, and is friendly to it. Trump has stated in many ways that he is not going to be friendly to the environment. Trumponomics is probably directed by UC Irvine Business School Prof. Peter Navarro, who is Trump’s only economics advisor with a degree in economics. Prof. Navarro is a trickle down theorist, so Trumponomics is a copy of Reaganomics, another reason to use the “onomics” term.

I am not going to repeat the simple set of numbers that constitute this, since they were read off the TelePrompTer on cable news channels by the Trump himself. I haven’t seen an analysis yet by a well known economic school or organization. That is also the trouble with the original announcement. Trumponomics was not vetted by any reputable, unbiased, economic school or organization. Announcing the plan without vetting, which is Trump’s “surprise them” style, leaves the plan open to multiple validated criticisms over the next two months until the election.

The tax cuts in the new version are supposed to be only half as large as the first version of the economic plan, and more directed to the middle class. Lowering the tax on bringing offshore profits back to the US from 35% to 10%, sounds to me like an enormous tax break for the super rich.

I am not an economist, so I cannot analyze the plan in detail. One thing struck me though. Trump said that he would create 25 million jobs in the next decade. This necessity goes along with the Republican claim that 92 million Americans are unemployed. Yesterday, an analysis of the now 94 million unemployed over 16 years of age, showed that you might not want to grab students out of high school or college, you might not want to force disabled people to work, you might not want to force retired people to work, and you may not want to force mothers of young children to work, since the standard Republican dogma is that they are supposed to be housewives. The actual number of unemployed people looking for jobs is 7.8 million people, since President Obama has brought the unemployment rate below 5%. 5% is considered a standard unemployment rate due to shifts in businesses and technologies. Long range unemployment of more than half a year is 2 million. There are 6.1 million workers just at part time jobs who would like full time jobs. Even if they take full time jobs, the part time jobs have to be done by workers who may make maybe 3 million jobs out of them. So there are maybe 11 million full time employees available.

In the last year, there were an average of 200,000 new jobs a month. That is 2.4 million new jobs a year. Trump’s 25 million new jobs in 10 years is essentially no more than the present rate under President Obama. Over the last year, average hourly non-farm earnings have risen 2.4%. While Trump said that Clinton has not created a job or earned a dollar for the economy, to the extent that she continues President Obama’s policies, those policies have been successful, “bigly”.

Trump’s expulsion policies will immediately strive to remove 6 million people, and eventually all 11.5 million illegal aliens, although Trump doesn’t believe estimates, and considers the number to be between 3 to 30 million people. Eight million of these people are workers. So that opens even more millions of jobs, which are low paid, probably not observing work hours rules, without medical coverage, and in difficult working environments, like crop picking and cooking in hot kitchens. So who is going to take these 25 million plus jobs?

Despite tax cuts to the middle class, the disappearance of  8 million low wage gardeners, construction workers, maids, nannies and cooks is going to greatly inconvenience the middle class and raise their expenses. Illegal immigrants are going to be replaced by professionals in these jobs, probably placed by agencies who take a cut, limited to standard hours or requiring overtime, adding the cost of social security, taxes, workers comp, health plans, safe working conditions, and passing licensing courses. Many spouses will quit the work force to replace the child care workers. Also, half of our crops are picked by undocumented immigrants. The cost of food will greatly increase when undocumented workers are replaced by those who require the above job amenities.

There is also the unknown effect to the economy, wages, unemployment, cost of imported goods, and meaniality of created jobs when Trump breaks all free trade agreements and renegotiates them, (for what is never specified or asked about) and adds tariffs and penalties for taking jobs oversees.

Posted in 2016 Primaries, Donald Trump, Economies, Income, Wealth | Leave a comment

UCI’s Rankings on US News — Ninth in Top Public Universities

UCI’s Rankings on US News – Ninth in Top Public Universities

The big news for us is that UC Irvine ranked ninth among top public universities in the United States. In this article we give the undergraduate rankings, and the rankings in the main graduate programs.  We also note that UC Irvine is ranked first in the NY Times College Access Index, and ranked 16th among more than 700 schools in Money Magazine.

In Money Magazine, the average time to graduation at UCI is 4.2 years, and the average student debt is $17,414.   There is the Blue and Gold program that guarantees free tuition to any student whose family income is below $80,000 a year.  Our acceptance rate is 37%, and the median SAT score is 1130, while the median ACT score is 24.

UCI has 25,256 undergraduates and 30,836 total enrollment. It has a 39% acceptance ratio. The student to faculty ratio is 19 to 1. However, 58.4% of classes have fewer than 20 students. Another 21% have between 20-49 students, and only 20.6% have 50 or more students. The four year graduation rate for students starting as freshmen is 70.3%, and the five year graduation rate is 85.7%, and the six year rate is 88.0%.  For transfer students, the two year graduation rate is 52.7%, the three year rate is 86.4%, and the four year rate is 89.9%.  A new program is working on three year graduation for advanced freshmen.  The UC system is adding 5,000 freshmen this year, and another 5,000 over the following two years.

In undergraduate education, our US News ranking is number 39 among National Universities, number 48 in Best Value Schools, and number 23 in Best Colleges for Veterans.

We ranked 44th (tie) in Best Undergraduate Engineering Programs. We ranked 32nd (tie) in undergraduate Business Programs.

Our Graduate School Program Rankings follow below, by sectors. Almost all of those are in ties for the same rankings, which doesn’t really matter, so we do not note ties.

Graduate Sciences:

• Biological Sciences: 34
• Chemistry: 24
• Computer Science: 29
• Earth Sciences: 34
• Math: 41
• Physics: 29

Graduate Engineering: 37

Graduate Fine Arts: 33

Graduate Law: 28

Graduate Education: 25

Medical:

• Research: 44
• Primary Care: 62

Graduate Business: 48
Graduate Social Science and Humanities:

• Criminology: 5
• Economics: 46
• English: 22
• History: 36
• Political Science: 40
• Psychology: 30
• Sociology: 25

Posted in Education, UC Irvine | Leave a comment

U.S. News National University Rankings for 2017

U.S. News National University Rankings for 2017

We present the top 29 National Universities in the U.S. News and World report rankings. We only list facts that are available for free. We also add the enrollments, showing how most peak out at about 8,000 undergraduate students. That means that the entering class is less than 2,000 students. Applicants should not feel badly if they do not make it into these schools.

The enrollments at UC Berkeley and UCLA each match that of about four or five of these private colleges. Of course our 10 campus system has to serve the University students for California’s population of 37 million, the largest US state. The difference seen by students is that the University of California generally has a student to teacher ratio of 19:1, while private Universities can have a 7:1 ratio.

Ties in rankings are reported as repeated ranking numbers.

1 Princeton 5,402
2 Harvard 6,699
3 U. Of Chicago 5,844
3 Yale U. 5,532
5 Columbia 6,102
5 Stanford 6,999
7 MIT 4,527
8 Duke 6,639
8 U. Pennsylvania 9,726
10 John Hopkins 6,524
11 Dartmouth 4,307
12 Cal Tech 1,001
12 Northwestern 8,314
14 Brown 6,652
15 Cornell 14,315
15 Rice 3,910
15 U. Norte Dame 8,462
15 Vanderbilt 6,883
19 Washington U. In St. Louis 7,504
20 Emory U. 6,867
20 Georgetown U. 7,562
20 UC Berkeley 27,496. Public
23 U. Southern California 18,810
24 UCLA 29,585. Public
24 U. Virginia Public
24 Carnegie Mellon U. 6,415
27 Tufts U. 5,290
27 U. Michigan – Ann Arbor 28,312. Public
27 Wake Forest U. 4,871

Posted in California University Rankings, Education, UC Irvine | Leave a comment

Top Ranked Public Universities – UC Irvine is Number 9

Top Ranked Public Universities – UC Irvine is #9

The US News and World Report has put out its US College Rankings for 2017. We present the top 23 in Public University rankings, and add in parenthesis their National Rankings among all US Universities. Ties are denoted by using the same ranking at which they come in.

1 UC Berkeley 20
2 UCLA 24
2 U. Virginia 24
4 U. Michigan – Ann Arbor 27
5 U. North Carolina – Chapel H. 30
6 College of William & Mary 32
7 Georgia Inst. of Technology 34
8 UC Santa Barbara 37
9 UC Irvine 39
10 UC Davis 44
10 UC San Diego 44
10 U. Illinois – Urbana 44
10 U. Wisconsin – Madison 44
14 Penn. State 50
14 U. Florida 50
16 Ohio State 54
16 U. Washington 54
18 U. Georgia 56
18 U. Texas – Austin 56
20 Purdue U. – West Lafayette 60
20 U. Connecticut 60
20 U. Maryland – College Park 60

Since rankings are not as informative as the total score for each university, we give them for the University of California schools listed here, noting that a perfect score is 100.  UC Berkeley led with 78, UCLA followed with 75, and then the very close four campuses;  UCSB with 65, UC Irvine with 64, and the tied UCSD and UC Davis with 63.

Posted in 2016 Election, California University Rankings, Education, UC Irvine | Leave a comment

Trump Waffles and Dodges on Climate Change to Scientific American

Trump Waffles and Dodges on Climate Change to Scientific American

Scientific American sent the Presidential candidates 20 questions. This article addresses the Trump’s campaign’s answer on climate change. Here was Trump’s first comment: “There is still much that needs to be investigated in the field of ‘climate change’” (The Waffle). He then followed that with a “Perhaps” list of alternate uses of our limited resources (the Dodge). Perhaps Trump’s staff should have investigated what was being done on the “Perhaps” list, since those goals are already being addressed and funded. The Catch 22 is: that by ignoring climate change, the other goals will be made more difficult.

Trump’s first comment on “climate change”, to investigate it further, sounds to a climate scientist as a promise to support a career of valuable research in the subject, but considering Trump’s climate denial, Perhaps Not. Perhaps the waffling statement really means that there is no reason to invest any money to slow further climate change. Certainly, the quotes around “climate change” make the subject sound like a joke. Why should this subject be any different from the Donald’s waffling on all subjects to try to attract more voters?

Trump’s first “Perhaps” is to bring clean water to everyone on the planet. That has been a goal of our foreign aid for decades. There are still about a billion people on earth without clean water who suffer diseases, shortened lifespans, and whose women must carry clean water long distances every day. Climate change increases droughts, and floods that pollute previously clean rivers and lakes.

Trump’s next “Perhaps” is to rid the world of diseases such as malaria. This is one of the goals of the Clinton Foundation, which Trump has demanded be shut down, and which he has accused Clinton of helping when she was Secretary of State. It is well known that global warming has spread infecting mosquitos to more Northern and Southern climates. Trump has so far said nothing to further the passage of federal aid to fight the Zika virus.

Trump’s third “Perhaps” is to increase world food production. It is well known that climate change will decrease food production through drought and floods. With sea level rise, very productive large river deltas such as in Bangladesh, Egypt’s Nile, and the Mississippi are being inundated with salt water, which wipes out farmland that feed tens of millions of people. In addition, Trump’s plan to deport all illegal immigrants in the U.S. will have serious effects on U.S. food production, since half of America’s farm workers are illegal immigrants.

Trump’s last “Perhaps” is to develop clean energy sources to lessen the need for fossil fuel. This is complete hypocrisy compared to all of the previous stances that Trump has made throughout the campaign. Why develop clean energy if “climate change” is just a Chinese plot, according to Trump? Trump has promised to restore coal plants, and coal mining jobs. Reducing coal power has been a major source of the U.S.’s reduction in greenhouse gases. Trump’s energy advisor, Oklahoma’s richest oil producer, Harold Hamm, has opposed further rebates for wind power in Oklahoma. Perhaps this “Perhaps” is a fiction of Trump’s new politically correct campaign committee, in order to gain independent votes.

This whole set of Waffles and Dodges is presented to the educated and scientifically astute audience of Scientific American. Do you think any of them are going to be fooled by Trump’s answers?

Posted in 2016 Election, Climate Change, Coal, Donald Trump, Fossil Fuel Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Renewable Energy, Sea Level Rise, Zika Virus | Leave a comment

Trump Again Shows That He is a Danger to National Security

Donald Trump Again Shows That He is a Danger to National Security

Many things occurred in Trump’s appearance on the Commander-in-Chief Forum that show his lack of understanding of the military, and his lack of plans for the nation’s international future.

Let’s start with the really important issue of nuclear security with Russia and its President Vladimir Putin. Its really impossible for Putin, while watching the campaign, not to realize that Donald Trump is unstable on a time scale of 10 minutes. Trump also has a cavalier attitude about the use and spread of nuclear weapons. Trump does not recognize the value of the nuclear prevention treaty with Iran, which is on the Caspian Sea along with Russia. Trump is fine with carpet bombing. As protector of Russia, Putin has to realize that he cannot live securely knowing that Trump has the nuclear button case following him around 24 hours a day.

Putin and his comrade oligarchs have become among the richest men on earth, controlling the resources of the Russian people. Besides protecting the Russian people, they also want to protect their great privilege and wealth from destruction. As international investors, they also do not want the international economy disrupted by the loose Trump cannon. Whatever animosity Putin has with Clinton and Obama, that is minor compared to the nuclear threat.

Even if Russia hacked and released the DNC files and published them, it is highly unlikely that Putin will do enough to guarantee the election to Trump. It has become clear that Putin’s supposed compliment of calling Trump “brilliant” was really calling him “flamboyant”, which is related to “flammable”. Putin’s agent of Paul Manafort is no longer influencing Trump, and Putin can no longer imagine that he can control Trump. I really doubt that there will be a Halloween surprise against the Clinton campaign, unless it is arranged by Wikileaks from material that they already have.

The press has caught many of Trump’s lacks of understanding of the military. I have a few to add. The script that Trump was reading quoted military procurement goals down to the ship, troop, and airplane. The script writer attributed this to the Heritage Foundation. You might wonder why a private organization would have such a detailed estimate of what the military needs were, and not the US military itself. The scriptwriter did not read the Heritage Foundation website with any understanding. The website merely quoted the Pentagon budget and procurement request. The script should have directly referenced the Pentagon request, unless the campaign was trying to pretend that the Generals and Admirals could not be trusted. Trump’s campaign also made a nonsensical mistake of comparing our naval ship count to that after World War I. Marco Rubio also quoted this in the primaries. With nuclear weapons, 10 aircraft carriers, and precision weaponry, the US Navy probably has a million times the power that it did at the end of World War I. In fact, if his script writer had studied the naval requests, he would have noted that about 50 of the requested “ships” were just shore patrol boats. Many of the others were probably for the 11th carrier group. The script writer and Trump never stated what mission the increase in weapons and troops were to be used for. Normally, when you pull troops out of two wars, you need fewer troops.

The press has noted that you do not fire the generals, as Trump implied he would do, for no apparent reason. They are not political appointees. Generals are usually fired by dictators who want to install their own loyalists so that the military does not oust them in a coup. Is it possible that Trump is paranoid about such a possibility? What actions is Trump considering that he is worried about a coup? Is it nuclear related? We know that Trump is already asserting a paranoia that if he loses, it must be because the election is fixed.

Now, consider Trump’s plan of giving the generals only 30 days after he takes office to lay out a plan to defeat ISIS. Trump has not even specified what limits or goals of military or other action he is considering, that the military can use for planning. Trump’s own plans are “secret”. Secret from our military which keeps secrets all the time? Trump will then decide who’s plans are best, not the military or a joint consultation? In fact, the military has spent years planning and defeating ISIS. Trump never acknowledges the contributions of the Iraqi military, the Kurdish military, the Turkish military, the rebels, and the international coalition that Obama has helped organize, which have been doing the actual work of defeating ISIS. Trump cannot defeat ISIS without these forces, and we know Trump is unusually talented in demeaning and destroying any coalition.

Finally, I was wondering how long it would take Trump to reveal what was said in his security briefing, in order to demean Obama and Clinton. It didn’t take long. To an international audience, Trump said that he read body language of the CIA to see that they disagreed wth Obama’s policies. Don’t you think that should have remained top secret information? That has been doubled down on by Lt. Gen. Flynn, the Russian reporter, who Trump took along for the briefing as his military expert. Flynn said that by the presentation he could tell about this disagreement. Somehow it was also leaked that Gov. Chris Christy was trying to restrain Flynn from asking questions. In fact, the President has the responsibility and knowledge of what actions the allies, the Congress and the people of the United States would approve, that the CIA itself is not responsible for weighing these to make final decisions.

I expect a lot more leaks from Trump in the near future, since he does not respect the generals or probably even the intelligence agencies. Remember, Trump knows better than they do. This is such an irony, since Fox News and the Congressional investigating committee have spent several years trying to convince us that it is Clinton’s email server that was the greatest security leak ever, but it turns out that there is no evidence of this.

Posted in 2016 Election, Clinton, Donald Trump, Nuclear Weapons, Politics, Russia | Leave a comment

Ιsn’t Trump the Greater Security Threat?

Isn’t Trump the Greater Security Threat?

While Trump decided to play up the tragedy of the Weiner-Abedin marriage as a threat to national security, Trump’s behavior shows him to be the real threat to national security.

First of all, Secretary Clinton has been out of the administration for four years, and what she and her assistant Huma Abedin knew four years ago is probably already public or irrelevant. Also, as far as Anthony Weiner goes, his aberrant behavior would only be a security risk if it was a blackmail-able secret. Instead, it is one of the most public embarrassments in the media. As of now, both Trump and Clinton were given identical national security updates.

Turning to Donald Trump, there are a plethora of security problems:

1 What is he hiding in his tax returns? Is this blackmail-able?
2 What is he hiding in not having a public health assessment?  Is this a blackmail target?
3 Why did he hire Russian agent Paul Manafort to be his campaign manager?
4 Why did he hire Russian reporter Lt. Gen. Flynn as his national security advisor?
5 What are his involvements with Russian banks and oligarchs?
6 What funds are he keeping off-shore?
7 Why is Trump undermining our European shield and allies in NATO, and our defense commitments with them?
8 Why did he imply that we would not defend the Baltic states, which are NATO members?
9 Why did he not acknowledge Russian aggression in Crimea and Ukraine?
10 Why did he say it might be okay for Russia to keep Crimea? We have pointed out that that gives Russia claim to a trillion dollars of Black Sea oil resources.
11 Why did he indicate that we might pull away our nuclear shield from South Korea and Japan?
12 Why does he not realize that running 500 businesses while President will leave him open to all manner of foreign conflicts and accusations of looking out for his own interests?
13 Why does he imply he will toss out our nuclear weapon prevention agreement with Iran?
14 Why will he end or revise all of our trade agreements, which lead to international business dependence, cooperation, and security?
15 Why has he been so intolerant of Muslims, after being informed that that would be a recruiting tool for ISIS?

16 Why did he not denounce Russia for interfering in an American election by hacking the DNC and Democratic fund raising committee, and releasing the files on Wikileaks?

17 Why did he double down by asking Russia to release the rest of Clinton’s emails if they had hacked her email server?

18 Why did he ask Apple to construct a backdoor to all iPhones for government spying?  IPhones of the million of government workers with security clearances could also then be hacked by a foreign power.  The San Bernadino attackers cell phone was eventually hacked, and no important information was ever announced about it.

19  Why did he say that he knows more about defeating ISIS than the generals know?

20. Why does he ignore the Pentagon assessment that climate change will lead to future conflict and mass refugee flows?

21  Why does he ignore climate change which has occured, and climate science that predicts serious climate threats to the US in droughts, floods, heat waves, and other costly stresses?

22  Whys does he choose only oilmen as energy advisors, since they know nothing about energy sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

23  Whys does he promise to disavow the Paris climate agreements, which the world can follow to slow the growth of greenhouse gases.

24  Why does he demand to build a wall on the Mexican border when there is already a net outflow of illegals, which will become a torrent if he becomes President.

25  Why does he ignore the valuable help that Mexico has given us in our war on drugs, slowing the flow of drugs into the US, at great cost to Mexicans both in money and lives?

26  Why does he threaten NAFTA and insist that Mexico pay for the wall when they are our third largest trading partner, and which NAFTA keeps Mexicans from coming to the US to do the same jobs?

27  Why does he not mention that Canada is the other partner in NAFTA, and our largest trading partner?  Canada and Mexico are our two largest export partners.

Finally, we bring this full circle:

28  Whys does Trump hire Roger Ailes, previous head of Fox News and a multiply accused sexual harasser, to help him with debate preparation.  Trump now knows as much current national security information as Clinton does, yet he hires someone who may be blackmailed for sexual perversion by a foreign power.

Update on Sept. 10, rather than writing another article:

29  In response to the story that the crew of a small Iranian boat had given an insulting sign with their hands, Trump declares he would have fired on the boat.  This would have started a war with Iran, and probably cost the nuclear non-proliferation  agreement with them.  Why does Trump take each insult to our troops personally, and react so strongly that it could have triggered a nuclear buildup throughout the Middle East?

30  This reminds me of the capture of one of our patrol boats crossing Iranian waters, where the sailors were made to kneel with their hands behind their head, which I think our police are trained to require of potentially armed suspects.  Trump wanted an armed response to that incident, which was resolved quickly and peacefully.  That reminds me of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, where one of our destroyers may or may not have been attacked by a North Vietnamese patrol boat.  That started the Vietnam war.  How did that work out for us?

31  Trump’s response to the Chinese slight of Obama by not giving him a normal staircase upon landing in China, would have been to immediately leave China.  This would have left us out of a G20 meeting, and a signing of the important clean energy pact with China.  Probably Air Force 1 also might have needed refueling.  Obama also met with world leaders privately at the G20 meeting.  Why does Trump react to any incident as if he were a petulant child who had been called a name on the playground.  Is this the intelligence, the temperament, and the composure we expect of a Commander in Chief?

32  Trump gave a phone interview to Larry King, not knowing that Larry King now works for RT America, a subsidiary of the Russian government Russia Today.  He said that it was unlikely that Russia hacked the DNC.  This directly ignores the analysis of American intelligence.  Why does he not believe American intelligence.  Why did he and his campaign not know that this would appear on Russian television?  Isn’t this a breakdown of his vigilance of national security?

 

 

Posted in 2016 Election, Clinton, Donald Trump, Nuclear Weapons | Leave a comment