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