Why would Russians want to hack into voter date bases?

With evidence Russian hackers have breached or attempted to breach voter data information in two states, the question is:
Now why in the world would the Russians want to do this? It is no secret they favor the election of Donald Trump and it is no secret that Donald Trump's foreign policy as outlined to date is more in the Russian national interest than in America's. Both Trump and Russia want to end NATO as we know it, which would ease any Russian further encroachment into the Baltics, Moldova, and Romania by removing a threat of western military counter action. Trump wants to retreat from alliances, a neo isolationist policy that would weaken the United States from an ability to be a player in world leadership and in forming alliances that would also benefit our national interests. His business interests have looked to Russia and until recently, his campaign manager had also served as an advisor the deposed president of the Ukraine now in exile in Russia.

Trump v Clinton: who is a bigot? Their supporters,the candidates themselves? Updated

Hillary Clinton presented a lawyer- like case using Donald Trump's own words that he was reflecting the racist, hateful views of the alt right and that  she charged the alt right was now running his campaign. In advance of her remarks, Trump tried to turn the tables by claiming she was saying  that all of his supporters were racists and that Clinton was the real bigot. Clinton was careful to pin Trump to the racist right, not to his supporters as a whole. She did not use the word "bigot".. Of course Trump's supporters have other reasons to support him, control of supreme court appointments, party loyalty, personal dislike of Clinton, political philosophy, fear of national security, and a desire for change of "a rigged"  political system, and they prioritize those worries ahead of concerns about whether Trump is racist or not.

Trump's attempt to call Hillary Clinton a bigot is in keeping with his  tactic of  accusing her with the same charge that makes himself vulnerable then or in the future. His calling Clinton as crooked was one way to counter charges he is a con man supporting  the practices of Trump University. His painting Clinton as untrustworthy ignores that his poll numbers are even worse in that same category.  His calling Clinton a liar is one way to counter fact checkers documenting that Trump himself is the one who made far more claims that were rated as lies and exaggerations.

 Who is Trump fooling?  If Trump hoped to appeal to minorities  or even moderate, inclusive desiring none  minority people with his bigotry charge based on the failure of Democratic mayors  to solve the problems plaguing urban African Americans, he is likely to get a guffaw from African Americans and others who know better. They know Clinton's forty years of her public life. and the role the GOP has played in stonewalling or proposing  legislation that would  help those in urban areas, attempts  from reducing nutrition support ,and subverting  public education,  and even opposing the mildest gun control  legislation.   They also know that there has been a concerted effort by the GOP to make it harder  and more inconvenient for minorities to vote or about  abusive police practices,  issues ignored by Trump.. 

Trump's attempt to paint Hillary with the sins of her husband may also realize that many of those in the African American community consider Bill Clinton the "first African American president" because of his closeness to the Black community. In contrast, Trump was the most vocal  American voice in trying to de-legitimize President Obama's citizenship with his claim Obama was born in Kenya. His propensity to attribute all minorities to the actions of a few,  including claiming  a federal judge could  not be objective in a law suit against him  because he was Mexican, was not gone unnoticed by Hispanics.  Neither unnoticed  has  been Trump's his continued  and most recent support of expelling all undocumented. (prioritizing the first to go as the bad guy criminal law breakers and  implying eventually expelling  all  "good" people , too,  depriving them of any sort of legal status or citizenship).

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/transcript-hillary-clinton-alt-right-reno-227419

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/media/breitbart-news-presidential-race.html?emc=edit_th_20160827&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33304952&_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html
hhttp://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/08/25/5-facts-about-trump-supporters-views-of-immigration/

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/the_disturbing_data_on_republicans_and_racism_trump_backers_are_the_most_bigoted_within_the_gop/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-and-the-politics-of-fear/498116/

Trump v Clinton: who is a bigot? Their supporters,the candidates themselves? Updated

Hillary Clinton presented a lawyer- like case using Donald Trump's own words that he was reflecting the racist, hateful views of the alt right and that  she charged the alt right was now running his campaign. In advance of her remarks, Trump tried to turn the tables by claiming she was saying  that all of his supporters were racists and that Clinton was the real bigot. Clinton was careful to pin Trump to the racist right, not to his supporters as a whole. Of course Trump's supporters have other reasons to support him, control of supreme court appointments, party loyalty, personal dislike of Clinton, political philosophy, fear of national security, and a desire for change of "a rigged"  political system, and they prioritize those worries ahead of concerns about whether Trump is racist or not.

Trump's attempt to call Hillary Clinton a bigot is in keeping with his  tactic of  accusing her with the same charge that makes himself vulnerable then or in the future. His calling Clinton as crooked was one way to counter charges he is a con man supporting  the practices of Trump University. His painting Clinton as untrustworthy ignores that his poll numbers are even worse in that same category.  His calling Clinton a liar is one way to counter fact checkers documenting that Trump himself is the one who made far more claims that were rated as lies and exaggerations.

 Clinton did not use the word "bigot" in her speech but  connected Trump  to racism using his  own words , praise from the his white supremacist supporters,  and his  campaign manager's association with the alt right web site, Breitbart, that promoted conspiracy theories and racist, sexist,  comments. That is not  Clinton's using that particular B word, but instead she provided the definition and showed how he fit into it. 

 Who is Trump fooling?  If Trump hoped to appeal to minorities  or even moderate, inclusive desiring none  minority people with his bigotry charge based on the failure of Democratic mayors  to solve the problems plaguing urban African Americans, he is likely to get a guffaw from African Americans and others who know better. They know Clinton's forty years of her public life. and the role the GOP has played in stonewalling or proposing  legislation that would  help those in urban areas, attempts  from reducing nutrition support ,and subverting  public education,  and even opposing the mildest gun control  legislation.   They also know that there has been a concerted effort by the GOP to make it harder  and more inconvenient for minorities to vote or about  abusive police practices,  issues ignored by Trump.. 

Trump's attempt to paint Hillary with the sins of her husband may also realize that many of those in the African American community consider Bill Clinton the "first African American president" because of his closeness to the Black community. In contrast, Trump was the most vocal  American voice in trying to de-legitimize President Obama's citizenship with his claim Obama was born in Kenya. His propensity to attribute all minorities to the actions of a few,  including claiming  a federal judge could  not be objective in a law suit against him  because he was Mexican, was not gone unnoticed by Hispanics.  Neither unnoticed  has  been Trump's his continued  and most recent support of expelling all undocumented. (prioritizing the first to go as the bad guy criminal law breakers and  implying eventually expelling  all  "good" people , too,  depriving them of any sort of legal status or citizenship).

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/transcript-hillary-clinton-alt-right-reno-227419

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/business/media/breitbart-news-presidential-race.html?emc=edit_th_20160827&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=33304952&_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/lists/people/comparing-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-truth-o-met/

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/the_disturbing_data_on_republicans_and_racism_trump_backers_are_the_most_bigoted_within_the_gop/

Smoke and fire in the 2016 presidential race. Hillary's mostly smoke; Trump's smoke has some fire

The stench of smoke has settled over this race to the White House.  Whether it means there is fire that is causing it is a matter of perception, the public’s definition of fire,  and finding evidence of a connection that indeed influences action that changes policy.

The low approval ratings reflected in polls of both major candidates are evidence that voters are not deaf and blind.  Even polls show that what is motivating voters to support one or the other is revulsion

 and dislike of  the opposing party candidate.  Clouds of smoke that hang over the race is as good as fire fueling voter preferences.  Recent news and investigative reporting have only added to the stink  of the smoke. Perception is more important than reality as a factor that influences public opinion. Smoke counts. Less important in the public’s eye is whether there is fire there.

 Thanks to  Colorado pollster and astute political observer Floyd Ciruli who recently concluded that Colorado is no longer in the toss up category as it is turning ever darker shades of bue in the electoral college map.  He drew heavily on a recent Quinnipiac  poll that partisan dislike of the opposition candidate is what is motivating voter preferences, not the positive love a candidate. The search for viable alternatives as a way out is anemic. So far the Libertarian Party has not polled higher than around 8% on the average and the Green Party is far behind as a third party choice.

 While a strong case can be made that taken all together, Benghazi, Hillary Clinton’s private email server, and the appearance of pay to play in the Clinton relationship to their family foundation makes it appear that Clinton is greedy and self promoting , truth  stretching, defensive  tail covering. However none  of those  issues have shown that policy resulted that rise to  the fire of illegal activity or influenced policy.. She appeared after innumerable Congressional hearings to be at arms length  with policies that resulted in the death of an ambassador in Benghazi.  The FBI investigation could not prove that she intentionally sent emails that had classified information. So far, even the Associated Press in their excellent reporting could not find that there was evidence national policy  changes resulted from giving access to non governmental connected foreign and domestic Foundation donors.. Nonetheless, the smell lingers.  The only way out of the stink is to close down the Foundation now and turn over its resources and administration of humanitarian aid to the Bill  Gates Foundation that has the capacity and similar philosophy to carry on.  It is not a matter of admitting wrong doing to shutter the Foundation;  it the most effective way  to remove the perception of wrong doing.

However, the New York Times digging around found that Donald Trump’s pronouncement  on foreign affairs issues show a connection to his business dealings.  He owes the Bank of China and Goldman Sachs in his finance dealings and his goals and business dealings with Russia are no secret now.  Trump’s  anti Southeast (TPP) trade agreement) positions may be a problem, too.  

Opposing the TPP may be a lure  for the Midwest belt  voters lying in rust with job killing globalization, but the TPP was also promoted to strengthen allies in Southeast Asia against Chines expansionism in the region.  His bromance of mutual flattery and echoing Russia’s President Putin’s  declaring NATO was obsolete, Russia did not grab eastern Ukraine  or that his reliance on debts to Wall street is indeed has a  suspicious connection to this business dealings. In these cases, there is fire of policy positions within the fog of smoke.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/trump-nafta-tpp/index.html

http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/

http://fciruli.blogspot.com/2016/08/colorado-now-considered-part-of.html

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2373

Trump in debt to China and Goldman Sachs; close financial ties to Russia

Donald Trump's attack against Hillary Clinton for being associated with a foundation that takes foreign money or is too close to Wall Street ignores an old warning: Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  Revealed by investigative reporters in the New York Times, he owes Goldman Sachs and China's goverment owned bank millions   His answer: well that is only a fraction of the value of the property he borrowed or benefitted from both China and the wall street titan. We will never know since he is not releasing his tax returns.


We will have to take his word for it, but that connection went underreported in campaign finance disclosures.

Documented, too, are Trump's financial ties to Russia. http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/ For years he has tried to establish a business presence there, and he has borrowed money from oligarchs.

 A most recent ad from the Trump campaign insinusates that the Clintons made money from their charitable foundation, which as James Carville on MSNBC's Joe today noted they did not take a penny from the foundation but gave it a million dollars last year.  True: The Clintons made their money mostly by speaking fees and it is true some of those fees came from Wall Street.

Does this buy access? Is it pay to play? The Associated Press  did show non governmental related contributors did get  access to Clinton. 50% of all non governmental individuals who get access to her were contributors to the Foundation. So far there is no evidence that the access during Clinton's time at the State Department changed policy. AP did not find that link. That would be a bombshell negative if that link could be proved.

In Donald Trump's case, his foreign policy echoes much of what Putin has proposed, especially regarding declaring NATO obsolete, and showing sympathy toward Russia's takeover of the Crimea.  Their  "bromance" has received much comment.  Recently Paul Manafort, one of his main advisors, resigned from the Trump campaign because of connections with Russia and the deposed president of the Ukraine, now a refugee in Russia.   Some charge Manafort of being an agent of a foreign government without disclosing that as required.

In any case, there is a smell  attached  to both candidates, which is reflected in the unfavorability polls.

While Trump did not hold a critical government position, as did Clinton, and pay to play is a charge that can only be levied at her, his surrogates are demanding that the Foundation be closed down now.  It seems fair that if elected Trump should close down his business deals and refuse to go into debt with China or Goldman Sachs...or even do it now.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-donald-trump-companies-at-least-650-million-in-debt/
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_CLINTON_FOUNDATION?SITE=AP
http://time.com/4433880/donald-trump-ties-to-russia/
Related blog postings concerning Trump's Russian ties and the result of Brexit. http://mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2016_06_01_archive.html
Related blog postings on Clinton Foundation: mufticforumblog.blogspot.com/2015_04_01_archive.html

Trump's newest pivot. Too little too late?

In the news last week  Donald Trump  appeared he is preparing himself for defeat but  in a last ditch effort ,he took on new campaign staff and made an interesting "pivot".   The question now is if his "pivot" is too little too late and his past flame throwing oratory will still come back to haunt him.

With plunging polls, he is beginning to see the writing on the wall so the leopard is changing his spots. He tried a pivot  earlier by sticking to teleprompter remarks, but when away from that discipline at the podium,  he had doubled down on  insulting key demographic groups. Now he is trying  to make amends by charging Democrats  for failing to lift African Americans up.  He failed to detail how he would help improve their economic standing and a failed to acknowledge their grievances about police brutality, too. He signaled a shift from insulting Hispanics to perhaps softening his immigration policies. Given his past bigoted, racial dog whistle comments and hate filled “build the wall” slogan, his sincerity will be a hard sell. Especially hard sell on his credibility is that the has taken on a campaign manager with close ties to the Alt Right, a movement which has white supremacist ties.

 This past week, Trump  admitted he had made some verbal mistakes and hurt some people.  On the other hand, he applied that admission to individuals only, ignoring he had turned off large blocks of  minorities, women, and the college educated.   The voters may already have come to the conclusion that the real Trump is a bigot who exploits divisiveness to promote himself. Also in question is to what extent his newly appointed advisors will reign him in since those very same  messaging advisors from  Breitbart specialize in conspiracy theories and inflammatory postings.

Before the pivot, he had attacked the press as  biased against him, accounting for sinking polls.   There are still other media outlets that tilt toward Trump that can warm the hearts of his supporters. That is the value of freedom of the press.  Trump’s message is still getting out because his inflammatory , insulting oratory is itself driving much of the coverage. Instead of killing the messengers, he needs to temper his message.

If Trump wants voters  to focus attention instead of  on himself   but on Hillary Clinton's weaknesses with her relationship with the Clinton Foundation, that  approach may have lost its value, only fortifying old news that she is a wheeler dealer that has already  become an acknowledged  perception.  Clinton's already low  personal approval ratings but winning  national  vote polls indicate voters  still prefer her to Trump,  warts and all. Trump's relying on the Foundation connection is like standing on shifting sands. The politically nimble Clinton campaign has already taken steps to assure the public that the Foundation will  not accept foreign donations and that Bill Clinton will resign from the board if she is elected. It may not be enough and she may have to heed the calls to shut down the Foundation
now. That option is still available.

The other excuse  for a potential loss we have heard  from Trump is that there will be voter fraud. He cannot accept  polls in Pennsylvania show he is losing , then fraud is the reason.  Trump must prove voter fraud  is widespread now and post election to make this excuse stick..  That is  a challenge. As Politifact, independent fact checker found true, was that " Roughly 300 people per year are struck by lightning in the United States. But cases of voter fraud -- someone impersonating another voter -- are documented even less often."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/if-hillary-clinton-wins-foundation-will-stop-accepting-foreign-donations.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/apr/07/mark-pocan/which-happens-more-people-struck-lightning-or-people

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alt-beginners-guide-000000002.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/transcript-hillary-clinton-alt-right-reno-227419

Trump's newest pivot. Too little too late?

In the news last week  Donald Trump  appeared he is preparing himself for defeat but  in a last ditch effort ,he took on new campaign staff and made an interesting "pivot".   The question now is if his "pivot" is too little too late and his past flame throwing oratory will still come back to haunt him.

With plunging polls, he is beginning to see the writing on the wall so the leopard is changing his spots. He tried a pivot  earlier by sticking to teleprompter remarks, but when away from that discipline at the podium,  he had doubled down on  insulting key demographic groups. Now he is trying  to make amends by charging Democrats  for failing to lift African Americans up.  He failed to detail how he would help improve their economic standing and a failed to acknowledge their grievances about police brutality, too. He signaled a shift from insulting Hispanics to perhaps softening his immigration policies. Given his past bigoted, racial dog whistle comments and hate filled “build the wall” slogan, his sincerity will be a hard sell.

 This past week, Trump  admitted he had made some verbal mistakes and hurt some people.  On the other hand, he applied that admission to individuals only, ignoring he had turned off large blocks of  minorities, women, and the college educated.   The voters may already have come to the conclusion that the real Trump is a bigot who exploits divisiveness to promote himself. Also in question is to what extent his newly appointed advisors will reign him in since those very same  messaging advisors from  Breitbart specialize in conspiracy theories and inflammatory postings.

Before the pivot, he had attacked the press as  biased against him, accounting for sinking polls.   There are still other media outlets that tilt toward Trump that can warm the hearts of his supporters. That is the value of freedom of the press.  Trump’s message is still getting out because his inflammatory , insulting oratory is itself driving much of the coverage. Instead of killing the messengers, he needs to temper his message.

If Trump wants voters  to focus attention instead of  on himself   but on Hillary Clinton's weaknesses with her relationship with the Clinton Foundation, that  approach may have lost its value, only fortifying old news that she is a wheeler dealer that has already  become an acknowledged  perception.  Clinton's already low  personal approval ratings but winning  national  vote polls indicate voters  still prefer her to Trump,  warts and all. Trump's relying on the Foundation connection is like standing on shifting sands. The politically nimble Clinton campaign has already taken steps to assure the public that the Foundation will  not accept foreign donations and that Bill Clinton will resign from the board if she is elected.

The other excuse  for a potential loss we have heard  from Trump is that there will be voter fraud. He cannot accept  polls in Pennsylvania show he is losing , then fraud is the reason, rationalizes. Trump must prove voter fraud  is widespread now and post election to make this excuse stick..  That is  a challenge. As Politifact, independent fact checker found true, was that " Roughly 300 people per year are struck by lightning in the United States. But cases of voter fraud -- someone impersonating another voter -- are documented even less often."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/politics/if-hillary-clinton-wins-foundation-will-stop-accepting-foreign-donations.html?_r=0

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/apr/07/mark-pocan/which-happens-more-people-struck-lightning-or-peop/

What Donald Trump's speech August 16 on law and order lacked

Listening to Donald Trump's speech to a rally in West Bend, Wisconsin, August 16,  to a nearly all White audience, what was most important was what was not said.  The theme was law and order, but left out was any acknowledgement that policing  has been more heavy handed with African Americans than with Whites.  Statistics and many studies also back up the perception held by organizations like Black Lives Matter as has a constant roll out of videos of questionable police action in shooting unarmed Blacks or Blacks that with closer scrutiny did not present a threat to a police officer.

 Trump tried to balance that deficit with talking about how much law and order is beneficial to the Black community. Except for acknowledging that the minority communities have been left behind economically and in services,  this was  no pivot from Trump's past positions  nor has there ever been a credible repudiation of support of his campaign from Whtie Supremicists.    This was un-pivot should do little to increase his support from the minority community and others who understand that the approach needs to be both, better police attittitudes, practices, in the community and standards enforced by local and federal authorities as well as  less tolerance of crime.

The implications of   his "law and order" slogan is that it sounds more like a heavy handed crackdown on protests in  those communities.  That Trump's per recent  shows in recent polls he has the support of 1% of the Black community, it is doubtful this speech increased the percentage enough to be significant.

insider.foxnews.com/.../poll-only-1-percent-african-americans-support-donald-trump

Donald Trump's foreign policy speech August 18: sins committed and much omitted.

.

Trump's speech  was vintage Trump...twisting facts and history to justify his statements. The most humorous one I heard concerned "extreme vetting" based upon an interview with the applicant about their support of the US Constitution, rather inadequate when there are so many other intelligence tools to vet someone out there that is not dependent upon someone being truthful and also unconstitutional, too.

Trump has shown so much ignorance about the constitution, maybe he would fail that test, too, if he had to explain the meaning, particularly of the first amendment.
The one that was the most alarming was his proposal to deport anyone using hate speech or extreme views regarding terrorism  that were already in the US .(Clinton has made similar proposals but giving priority to deportation for those illegally here)   Seems to me those are the ones that deserve close monitoring by the FBI  of those doing it, but deporting them just on the basis of stating their US disloyalty , even though they may be legally in the US, is unconstitutional.  As we know, even such speech is protected by the first amendment.  As fact checker  Politifact found,  there is already a 3 year vetting process using many national and international security agencies to admit refugees to the US.   Somehow an interview based upon a face to face interview seems hardly "extreme" and out of  touch with the reality of the current  vetting process.

Short on details again are the" how, toos".  Except for the violation of international law in seizing oil fields and the number of US troops it would take to occupy a country to do that, some of what he does propose  are  the same tactics already vigorously practiced by the Obama administration, even including some coordination with the Russians in wiping out ISIS in Syria, though our goals regarding keeping Assad are the opposite.. 

What was interesting, Trump's attack echoing Vladimir Putin's words that NATO was obsolete and should be turned into an anti terrorist organization, was altered to acknowledge NATO had recently given more focus to anti terrorism. 

His most recent incendiary remark that Pres. Obama and Hillary Clinton were the 'founders' of ISIS',  directly responsible for the rise of  ISIS, was a bit modified, but the fault was still laid at Obama and Clinton's feet. However, as Politifact fact checker notes on MSNBC the morning of August 16,, the withdrawal of troops and the rise of ISIS took place during the George W Bush administration, which Obama and Clinton carried out.  How short our memories are as well that Obama was elected in 2008 to a great part because he supported withdrawal from Iraq as negotiated in the Bush administration because he had originally opposed the intervention.  Public opinion has always been on the side of withdrawal and opposed to sending in large numbers of ground troops back into Iraq. Besides, the government of Iraq had also opposed continued occupation, too.    

The Associated Press fact checking of his assertions is very lengthy and extensive, but worth reading (link following).
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/fact-check-trump-gets-his-mideast-history-wrong/ar-
BBvFtaI?ocid=sf

http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/read-donald-trump-full-transcript-speech-foreign-policy-address-remarks-prepared-august-15/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/aug/11/donald-trump/donald-trump-pants-fire-claim-obama-founded-isis-c/

The challenge of explaining Trump to Europeans

The challenge of explaining Trump to foreigners

I was in Europe during the US  political conventions, but thanks to You Tube, Yahoo News and the online reporting, I still followed the events, speeches, and spins via internet.  I thought only I was glued to the news, but I found so was everyone I encountered in Europe, from taxi drivers, wait staff, relatives, business associates, and friends,  from all corners of Europe, including Sweden, Belgium, Austria, Croatia.

They could not wait to ask me about what I thought of Donald Trump, and with nearly universal angst, asked,” you don’t think he will win, do you? “ A recent Pew poll showed only 9% of Europeans  favorably viewed  Trump (Clinton rated 59% favorable).  Many quoted back to me the most recent polling and wondered how 40% of   Americans could even support him.  Terms I heard were ” he is a clown, but it would be funny if it were not so serious “ , fearing repercussions for their own countries since “whatever happens in the US affects us”.  Another  said “if Trump wins, all of Europe will boycott the USA”. While all were facing similar movements in their own countries of anti immigration, especially alarmed with the flood of Syrian refugee, mass killings by jihadists, or complaining about  their countries’  economic standing,  they seemed to focus on his temperament and ignorance more than they connected him to the ideology of the resurgence of their right wingers.  I did say I thought Trump’s rise had similarities with those movements because of the anti immigration issues and economic malaise he had tapped.  The mood of his base is similar to those who voted for Brexit, the United Kingdom’s popular vote this spring resulting the that country’s exit from the European Union.

So how did I answer? I would make no predictions, though post conventions polls show significant gains for Hillary Clinton.   This election is like none I ever experienced. It has reached the level of irrationality.   Facts and position papers on issues seem not to matter. Utterances  by  Trump are  geared to reflect the preconceived notions of his  ardent base, allowing him to get away with  comments that would have disqualified others in traditional races before. For many, Trump agrees with them so what he says must be true, ignoring independent fact checkers   This race has devolved into   a contest between who is the biggest liar and who has the right temperament.

The other factor causing uncertainty.is  minority parties playing an unusual role in this year’s campaign because the nominees of  the two dominating parties are both viewed negatively by so many.. It is not yet settled how many in the GOP would vote for a libertarian and how many Bernie Sanders supporters would vote Green. It is highly likely the person elected President  in November will not have 50 plus 1% of the vote.

 I had a challenge explaining how the electoral college works,  how this differs from European multi party elections, and why third parties could rarely win in the US.  States set their own rules and most award winner take all electoral college votes  to the one with the largest popular vote and they set rules making it difficult to get on the ballot in all 50 states. However, the minor parties  could  still influence the outcome by diverting votes  from either major candidate, splitting off  votes that would have otherwise  gone to that candidate in prior years.

For those who would like an fascinating  analysis of Trump  supporters, read   http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/08/05/washington_post_david_ignatius_facts_dont_matter_to_trump_supporters.html  

And https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/

http://www.pewglobal.org/2016/06/29/as-obama-years-draw-to-close-president-and-u-s-seen-favorably-in-europe-and-asia/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/pew-poll-obama-trump-clinton/index.html

The following was a much more indepth analysis of Trump supporters.  They may be actually not in economic distress themselves, but worry about their kid's future. They live in neighborhoods which have a record of inhabitants being more unhealthy than others  and they have little contact with immigrants themselves.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/12/a-massive-new-study-debunks-a-widespread-theory-for-donald-trumps-success/

Kaine vs. Pence on Unemployment

Kaine vs. Pence on Unemployment

Trump University: is it a con game

This is a reposting of a prior June 7, 2016 posting for technical reasons.

Scrutiny of the Trump University  class action  law suits should not be buried in the flap over Donald Trump's racist charges against the judge hearing the class action suit who authorized releasing some of the court records.   It may tell a lot about his ethics and his sincere caring about those he promises to help.  The suit will not go to trial until after the November election, but releasing some of the court documents, as the judge did, could shed some light on why consumers sued and what they are charging.

My antenna is still  raised when I smell a con game.  Many years ago I was the director of a white collar and consumer fraud unit for local district attorneys .Later, I was the public trustee of Denver supervising foreclosures and even later as an executive with non profit Consumer Credit Counseling Services in Denver.

 I smelled a con game when I heard about this suit. The scheme of  holding seminars, charging big bucks, and marketing to those who were in need of additional income, not necessarily those who had the wherewith all to make use of the information in the seminars, has been around for a long time.  Trump University took this to another level, turning it into a major marketing opportunity to make a dime. High pressure sales tactics appeared to have been used to target lower middle income participants to max out credit cards and to buy extensive educational material, whether they were financially able to afford what the Trump U school taught or even to afford to participate.

 Is this a crime? Not all unethical business practices are criminal, but if  the participants feel they have been sold with deceptive trade or advertising practices, it could be criminal or civil. Promising blue sky high returns while knowing participants could never or were unlikely to realize their investments is an example of this.  Criminal prosecution may get the perpetrators in jail or fined, but the victims would probably not get their money back. Civil suits are easier to prove than criminal charges and  civil  suits are the method needed to get restitution.  It is particularly sad when victims are lower income and could not sue individually, to get refunds. because of the cost of attorney fees, as they appear to be in the Trump case.   In the Trump University case, those who felt victimized have been represented in a class action suit which allows attorneys on their own dime to represent all of those who feel victimized, gambling if they win the suit and get compensated for their time and efforts, as well as getting money back for all in the "class".


  At the risk of embarrassing a good friend of mine, here is a story worth repeating. Over ten years ago and freshly retired,  she asked me about "investing" her money in a course to  learn how to get rich on real estate investing.

  There have been and are traveling conductors of seminars held in rented hotel rooms  that sound similar to the kinds of courses taught at Trump University.  Those travelers charge high dollars for the "secrets' that are mostly calling on their students to borrow money to pay for their courses that  then urge  them to  buy property, go into debt, and  flip it later for a buck.  Of course, that only works if a market  is on the upswing or if investors have cash or  the credit and means to borrow,  but she was not told that.  She was a single woman with few savings, living on Social Security and a small employer pension.  She maxed out her credit cards and showed me the material the seminar distributed.  It was mostly xeroxed newspaper clippings.  I warned her. Later she told me that when she was attending the seminar, law enforcement officials raided the class room and carted away the instructors in hand cuffs.  I do not know if she ever took such courses again, but her savings and cash flow went to the seminar and she never was able to invest or flip.   She is now in her late 70's and in her "retirement years", she is still working to supplement her  income. The only ones who usually  get rich are the seminar conductors law enforcement  or  civil and class action plaintiffs do not catch.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judge-orders-release-of-internal-trump-university-documents/2016/05/28/2e960e5e-24f9-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html