Archive | government RSS feed for this section

136. Trump & Putin, Just Infatuation?

13 Jan

If you don’t know that Trump has excessively supported Russia and Putin then you must have been in a 4-year coma. The NY Times just reported that the FBI has been investigating this inappropriate relationship since the firing of FBI Dir. Comey. For those who need some reminders, here is a list of relevant information. One or two factors might not be significant, but so many interactions (many with secrecy) with one country is very suspect.

Failure to condemn Russian attacks on Ukraine and the take-over of Crimea.

Failure to believe his own intelligence agencies, that it was Russia that interfered with the US elections.

Significant delays in implementing some Russian sanctions.

Failure to agree (in a timely fashion) that Russia was responsible for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in England. Months later, after congressional pressure, he finally acted.

Several meetings with Russian leaders and Putin himself without publishing any details. He confiscated translators notes and swore the translator to secrecy. There usually was no sharing of info with his team, and often Trump associates were not present in the meeting room.

Putin’s policies with regard to Afghanistan and other topics were parroted by Trump, and are generally considered lies. Putin claimed that terrorists from Afghanistan attacked Russia, and that led to the Russian attack.

Numerous Trump associates have had excessive interactions with Russians. Some have been indicted, some pleaded guilty, and some were convicted.

On TV, Trump asked Russians to reveal info on Hillary Clinton’s emails.

There is evidence that Trump was planning a hotel in Moscow and was communicating with Putin about this.

Trump implemented to some extent, Putin’s goals of breaking breaking up NATO, which has protected us and Europe from Russian invasion.

In the Helsinki meeting, Trump believed Putin over his own intelligence agencies, and showed an unusual amount of friendship.

Numerous statements on TV that the US must have a good friendship with Russia, even though they interfered with our elections and attacked Ukraine.

Donald Trump Jr. stated that Russians had financially supported the Trump family, when US banks rejected him.

Many of Trump’s foreign trade and military policies have provided opportunities for Russia to take more leadership roles.

There is evidence that Russians have provided income for Trump by paying excessive prices when buying his condos.

Advertisements

135. “Shut-Down” Resolution

12 Jan

This government shut-down dilemma could be ended by some intelligent negotiation. The last meeting could have led to something more productive, but was cut short by fear and anger. Each party has vital needs. Trump is desperate to keep his voting-base and have a win to raise his spirits, in the face of frightening investigations.  “Chuck and Nancy” are really angry about a betrayal by Trump reversing his gov funding position; caused by radical right-wing dingbats (Rush and Ann). Dems  know an expensive full wall is very wasteful and the five or so billion could be spent in better ways.

A really good negotiator could quickly resolve this difference. Fear and anger emotions play a part in preventing a compromise, but I also think both sides are not very skilled in this type of situation. It might be good to call in a top professional negotiator to work with a representative from each side.  I would suggest Trump himself and Chuck Schumer alone with the chosen negotiator. The result would be a compromise that both parties could stomach.

Here is a possible resolution. Three or four billion would be allotted for Southern border security to include improved fencing/walls and implementing a variety of relevant electronic devices. The details could be left to border control experts. This or some similar variation could work for both sides. Dems could accept some improved fencing and Trump could say some wall would be built — shut-down over.  I had hoped for a clear win for the Dems, but this terrible destructive situation must be ended. We NEED A WIN FOR THE COUNTRY. 

Added thought: Democrats, being more idealistic, should lead the way and a  representative should send an email or other message to Ivanka Trump (or someone similar) proposing this method of shut-down resolution.  She could convince her father to work on this.

 

 

 

 

 

134. My View of 2020 Gov

12 Jan

Please see my previous blog for a list of the most popular Democrat presidential candidates. I rated Elizabeth Warren as my top choice for President. Since I wrote blog #133, I still rate her tops, but feel more positive about Kamala Harris. Warren has a unique combination of strength, inspirational leadership, intelligence, and social skills. I think she would be able to gather the best consultants and utilize their knowledge.      Kamala is also impressive in these factors and maybe her time will be 2024.  Here is a possible view of a 2020 gov:

President: Eliz Warren,   Vice Presidentt: Eric Swalwell.  I think a female-male combination would be a good balance.  Eric has great voter appeal and appears capable.

Kamala Harris should have a prominent position, perhaps Sec of State, or chief of staff.

Top cabinet positions could be filed with Beto, Joe Kennedy, and other capable young candidates, where they could be effective. In many cases, such positions should be filled by outstanding professors, gov agency officials, and other well-established experts in special fields. Any position where science is important, should be filled with appropriate scientists (or similar), not political allies.

I would expect that Elizabeth would have regular consultations with Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.  Al Gore and Jay Inslee could help with climate-change issues. Imagine a president that consults with really good people. Under Obama, this was the rule.

Traditional government agencies should be immediately restored with the best personnel. Hopefully, there could be many judicial appointments with progressive orientations. I assume that Pres. Warren would rely heavily on experts in foreign policy, military matters, environmental factors, scientific and health applications/research, correcting income inequality, taxation, infrastructure improvement, education, and many other areas. It is exciting to anticipate this governmental revision.  Many other good configurations are possible, and I look forward to a Democrat victory.

 

 

 

 

 

 

133. The Age of Candidates

3 Jan

Below is a list of 2020 Presidential Democrat Candidates with their age and highest office.  I am older than all of these candidates so I know how important age is in being able to function in this demanding environment. The older candidates may have diminished memory and intellectual functioning. (Trump likely suffers from Alzheimer’s disease, which could account for his bizarre behavior.)

My list below includes all those with at least some national name recognition. All things considered, Elizabeth Warren, at this time, appears to be the best candidate. Several people listed immediately below her name could be her running mate,  and future presidential candidates.

Eliz. Warren’s age of 69 is marginal, but she likely could have four good years, and is a top choice, for sincerity and standing up to Trump. She is powerful and an excellent speaker. She has been known for solid ideals and would support the middle class, which the Repubs have ignored. She really would drain Trump’s swamp.  It’s also possible that any of the few at the top of the list could emerge in a year as the ultimate candidate.

I think Eric Swalwell  at 37 is very promising. Great charisma and looks presidential. But right now, a little too young for the top spot, but could be veep. In a few years, Joe Kennedy could gain popularity, but right now is not a great orator. I just added Jay Inslee because he is devoted to environmental and climate factors, seems well-organized, and is a good speaker. Beto O’Rourke might be a good running mate for E. Warren.

Elizabeth Warren 69 Powerful inspirational, intelligent, now best choice

Beto O’Rourke 46 Rep. Very popular, but lacks experience

Kamala Harris 54 Senator, aggressive outspoken, maybe 2024 election

Eric Swalwell 37 Rep. Very charismatic, looks presidential speaks well

Jay Inslee 67 Gov. Washington St. Emphasizes Climate Change

Tom Steyer 61 wealthy, impeach advocate

Cory Booker 49 Senator aggressive, good speaker

Sherrod Brown 66 Senator

Kirsten Gillibrand 51 too radical a feminist for my taste

Tim Kaine 60 Senator, OK, but not exciting

Amy Kobucher 58 Senator, Centrist, likeable not powerful

Joe Kennedy 38 Rep. Not a great speaker, has the Name, future?

Andrew Cuomo 60 Gov NY

Terry McAuliffe 61 Gov Va, DNC chair Bill & Hillary supporter

***** Great people, but too old or otherwise past their time:

Bernie Sanders 77 Great ideals, very popular, but now too old

Michael Bloomberg 76 Mayor NY alternated parties

Joe Biden 75 ex Veep Well known and very likeable.

John Kerry 74 presidential nominee

Hillary Clinton 71 won pop. vote, would have been great pres.

132. Latest Climate Change Info: Simplified

29 Dec

It is vital that our government supports climate change programs.The dangers are serious and some harmful effects are already happening. Helping people and leaders to understand the science is my contribution. Here are the fundamentals, briefly:

Light from Sun >> Heats earth >> Heat energy Rises /\ /\  from earth
Some rising heat is blocked ]]]] from escaping by gases like CO2
Burning fuel increases CO2 causing more ]]]]]] blockage & warmth

More Detail:
Light from the Sun passes through our atmosphere and warms our planet. The resulting heat rises and some is blocked from escaping into space by “greenhouse” gases: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, water, and others. Small quantities of these gases are naturally in the atmosphere, and the amount is relatively stable.

But when we burn fuel and create more heat-blocking CO2, there is excessive planet warming. CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” are like a blanket around our planet. See below for more scientific detail.

How do we know that planet warming is caused by human activity?
1, The carbon dioxide emitted by burning coal, natural gas, and oil has a unique chemical pattern — and the additional CO2 in the atmosphere bears that signature. (See below for more detail.)

2. The CO2 and warming are closely correlated with the history of the industrial revolution, which involved the burning of coal and gasolene. As the usage of fossil fuels increased, the warming increased. During the history of the Earth, there were temperature cycles, but these natural cycles are very much slower than the current rapid temperature warming. No other “natural” factors could have caused this increase. See this NASA reference for actual data:  https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

What are the dangers of global warming? Warming causes arctic and other northern ice to melt. This is already well established by photographic evidence. The consequence is warmer oceans, rising sea levels, and changes in ocean currents.

The warming of oceans increases the strength of hurricanes. In recent years, hurricanes are worse than before. Changes in ocean currents shift land temperatures and rainfall so that some lands (like California) are drier and other places are flooded. Inhabited land that is close (or even less than) sea level is starting to flood, due to a slight rise in sea level. A good example is flooding in Venice, Italy, where the sea level has consistently risen by a total of 26cm since 1870. Many highly populated coastal areas of the USA are vulnerable. Some ocean islands are no longer habitable.

Scientists have spent thousands of hours recording and studying these factors. All of these facts are published in reputable scientific journals and magazines, such as Scientific American and Science. All reputable scientists support these findings. A recent official government report and NASA report supports all these facts. Politicians sometimes dispute these facts because their donors might need to spend money to correct their operations. Scientists are not political with respect to science.
—————
Added scientific clarifications
Rising heat energy (infrared radiation) is effectively  “blocked” by CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Most of our atmosphere consists of oxygen and nitrogen, which are small molecules and have little effect on rising heat. Greenhouse gases like CO2 have larger molecules and can absorb heat energy. Shortly after absorption, the heat energy is re-emitted in any direction. The part that goes downward tends to warm the earth. Long before humans inhabited the Earth, greenhouse gases were in the atmosphere at an almost fixed level as a result of opposing processes that produced an equilibrium. These gases warmed the Earth enough to make it habitable for humans and other animals. Burning fuels has increased the heat, causing harmful effects.

CO2 from fuel burning can be identified because it contains tiny amounts of certain inert (noble) gases, Other “natural” CO2 has a different pattern of these inert gases. This is often referred to as a “fingerprint.

Scientists have been working diligently on the problem of added global warming. There are basically two types of solution:  1. Reduce the burning of fuels by producing alternative energy like windmills and solar arrays, and 2. Develop industrial processes for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Number 1 is already in major use. Number 2 is being developed by researchers, but the effectiveness is not yet known . Our gov needs to support BOTH of these efforts, trying to remove CO2 (etc) from the atmosphere will not be enough.

Valuable References
Here is a scientific reference on CO2 effects
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
 Bibliographies for climate change (here are 2 of many):
https://www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/library/biblio (USA Forest Service)
http://www.nyulawglobal.org/globalex/Climate_Change_Bibliography1.html  Government Report: https://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report
 NASA info:  https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/  (this is excellent)

130. Current Impeachable Actions

5 Dec

Many legal experts believe that a number of Trumps actions and tweets are illegal and/or serious enough to be used in an impeachment.  Below, I have listed possible relevant violations, without a comprehensive presentation of conclusive facts. The related details are complicated and beyond the scope of an ordinary blog. I have provided an outline of areas for investigation that interested readers can use.  So far, the Republican Congress, which consists mostly of blind followers of Trump, has ignored these possible violations. Mueller’s ultimate findings will be the best source of “facts.”

TAMPERING WITH WITNESSES:  Trump has been tweeting regarding these witnesses: Roger Stone, Michael Cohen, and Paul Manafort. An internet search will quickly lead to relevant statements. For example, just search:  “Trump praises Roger Stone” or “Trump may pardon Manafort”, or “Trump discusses the witness Michael Cohen”

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE The above “tampering” could also be interpreted as an obstruction of justice. Also the firing of FBI Director Comey and Trumps statement to Lester Holt that he did it because of the Russian investigation, in incriminating.

EMOLUMENTS AND FAILURE TO DIVEST.  Trump has not actually separated himself from a financial interest in his many hotels and golf courses. Having his sons running these businesses still maintains an interest. Foreign leaders stay at his hotels and provide substantial income. Russian oligarchs buy his condos at greatly excessive prices.  Trump stated that he has sold many things (non-gov) to the Saudis.  And this may have influenced his unusual support for “MBS”  who was identified (by the CIA) as responsible for ordering the Kashoggi assassination.

Also, he has stated his admiration for autocratic foreign leaders, like Korean Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin, Philippine leader Rodrigo Duterte, Erdogan of Turkey, etc.

COLLUSION WITH RUSSIANS TO INFLUENCE OUR ELECTIONSThe notorious Trump Tower meeting with Trump staff and Natalia Veselnitskaya (June 9, 2016) during the campagne, suggests a collusion. The associated details including POTUS announcements, emails, testimony by several participants, etc. are all very convincing. Mueller has gathered a significant amount of info regarding this meeting. It appears that there is evidence that Trump knew about the meeting and approved it.

OTHER OFFENSES  There are other lesser Trump offensives that should also be considered.  Serious offenses include statements that undermine important agencies such as the FBI and CIA. In several instances, he has chosen to believe foreign leaders over our own intelligence agencies. For a long time he denied that the Russians influenced our elections. He also refused to believe that the Saudi Prince MBS was responsible for the assassination of a US resident reporter Jamal Kashoggi.

Even though Trump might not be convicted after impeachment, I still think it would send a valuable message at home and abroad.  I look forward to January, when the new House congressmen are sworn in.

 

129. Trump vs Hillary Administration

24 Nov

I often think about how the USA would be different if Hillary Clinton had won the election. Here is my comparison of the real Trump and my speculation about Hillary, based on her extensive experiences: first lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and a successful candidacy for POTUS (won popular vote by 2.7m).

Trump: Because of a questionable history involving fraud (Trump Univ, etc), failure to divest (hotel revenue from foreign leaders), and election irregularities, and other failures, Trump could not hire top cabinet members and advisory personnel. His primary concern had to be loyalty, rather than ability.
Hillary: Her varied experiences and association with Pres. Obama would have enhanced her ability to hire top personnel. There would be no loyalty limitations. She could hire top university professors, top scientists, top officials, top economists, and experts in many areas. Look at Trumps turn-over rate.

Trump: A horrendous record of thousands of lies and extreme exaggerations.
Hillary: No need to lie. She would value a reputation for truth and reliability.

Trump: Efforts to fulfill ridiculous campagne promises, like a South border wall to prevent illegal immigration.
Hillary: Realistic campagne promises that could be worked on during her office.

Trump: Petty name calling and childish conflicts, often with very respectable people.
Hillary: She would treat good people with proper respect, even if they made critical remarks.

Trump: He tried to break up NATO and destroy our valuable relationships with traditional allies.
Hillary: She would have preserved NATO, the UN, and other international organizations. We would have maintained our powerful and helpful, long-term allies.

Trump: No respect from foreign leaders.
Hillary: Her past experience as Sec of State and many other relationships with leaders would have engendered great respect.

Trump: Refuses to respect and believe our intelligence agencies. This promotes distrust by many parties and bad international actions.
Hillary: Always respected the intelligence agencies.

Trump: Makes impulsive decisions, not considering all the implications that are relevant. Example is our trade policies that have resulted in job loss.
Hillary: Trained to make careful decisions based on real gov experience.

Trump: Does not believe human-influenced climate change, that all reputable scientists confirm.
Hillary: Would have promoted responsible actions to avoid climate disasters. She also would have encouraged many energy-saving plans.

Trump: Gave us conservative Supreme Court justices that could undue numerous valuable laws and regulations.
Hillary: Better justices in all courts.

Trump: Withdrew the USA from several important treaties. This makes the US appear unreliable and discourages agreements with other nations.
Hillary: Most existing treaties would be maintained.

Trump: Is influenced by countries such as Russia likely because of financial entanglements. He clearly favored actions by Putin. Also he supported Saudi leader that murdered a Wash-Post associate.
Hillary: No foreign influence. Decisions only made which are for the good of our country.

Trump: Developed a policy of reducing gov regulations. Some of the regulations provided pollution safeguards. People will die from toxins.
Hillary: Would keep all appropriate regulations and would emphasize health.

Trump: Promotes seriously bad immigration policies such as separation of parents and children. He does not care about human suffering. He also moved thousands of troops to the border for only political purposes.
Hillary: Would never make such policies.

Trump: Our various agencies have been gutted and the Secretaries often sabotage the agency traditional goals; example EPA.
Hillary: Just the opposite.

Trump: Promised to drain the swamp but hired extremely rich agency chiefs that have wasted money and misused various funds.
Hillary: Would have hired responsible leaders.

Trump: Inappropriate in dealing with many important situations. For example, he said that bad forest management was responsible for the fires and promoted a ridiculous plan of raking 33 million acres of forest.
Hillary: would have been appropriately concerned and would have provided financial assistance.

Trump: Was tricked by the North Korean leader. He is still working on bombs and inter-continental missiles. Kim raised his international position at our expense.
Hillary: Knew that Kim would not be reliable and would have anticipated his tricks.

Trump: Ignores experts at our gov agencies, like the State Dept. He does not coordinate well which his agency secretaries so that foreign leaders don’t know what to believe.
Hillary: Would have made great use out of experts throughout the gov.

Trump: Press is enemy of the people.
Hillary: Not enemy.

————————–
I could add more, but I think I will stop here. You get the point. Hillary Clinton would have provided responsible and reliable leadership (no short-sighted tweet decisions), would have enhanced respect for the USA, and would have gathered around her the very top-most experts to guide her decisions.