Campaign 2020: "Shared Dreams," Amy Klobuchar's Announcement

On Sunday, February 10, 2019, U.S. Senator from Minnesota Amy Klobuchar stood in swirling snow and announced she is running for President. Remarkably, she is now the fifth woman running for the White House in this 2020 campaign.

I saw an interview later where Klobuchar joked about the snow: she said it looked like she was aging during her speech as her hair got whiter and whiter.

I have heard a pundit say there should have been some sort of roof over Klobuchar, but others have said that standing in the snow showed her strength and determination. I think the latter is true, especially since she is competing for the chance to run against a man who once cancelled a trip to a veteran's cemetery because of rain.

The crowd waved solid red "Amy" signs or solid blue "Amy" signs as the new candidate said she is running "for every parent who wants a better world for their kids" and promised that she is "running for every American."

One of the themes of the announcement was restoring democracy and Klobuchar called on the American people to "organize, galvanize, and take back our Democracy." She described her plans to:

• Automatically register young people to vote when they turn 18,
• Restore the Voting Rights Act, and
• Push for a Constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision so we can get "dark money" out of politics.

Another theme of the speech was protecting the environment and Klobuchar promised that within her first 100 days in the White House she would:

• Restore clean power rules,
• Restore gas mileage standards, and
• Invest in green jobs and infrastructure
• And, she also promised that on "day 1" she would rejoin the International Climate Agreement the current President has pulled the United States out of.

On the themes of technology and jobs Klobuchar promised to:

• Promote new rules to protect privacy on the internet
• Promote net neutrality
• Promote the training of workers for new jobs with a focus on certificates and two-year degrees
• And, most dramatically, the candidate called for having every household in America connected to the internet by 2022.

Turning to health and safety Klobuchar outlned plans to:

• Allow safe drugs from other countries to be sold in the United States
• Lift the ban that currently prevents Medicare from negotiating cheaper drug prices
• Require universal background checks for gun purchases
• And, in another big move, Klobuchar called for universal healthcare.

In simultaneous nods to fiscal responsibility AND populism the candidate called for bringing down the national debt by closing tax loopholes for the wealthy while still making it easier for workers to afford childcare, housing, and education.

There was not much about foreign policy in this speech but, in a statement that also poked the current president, Klobuchar promised to respect our troops, our diplomats, and our intelligence officers by not running her foreign policy with tweets.

One of the closing remarks sounded like a very good over-arching theme for Klobuchar's campaign right at the beginning: "We all live in the same country of shared dreams."

It was a good announcement. Let's see how Senator Amy Klobuchar holds up in the political battles to come.

You can listen to Amy Klobuchar's announcement speech here:
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-etav-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=etav&p=amy+klobuchar#id=1&vid=4d9c8cd9bb4bccbdad805bb5c1bd448d&action=click

***

[This should a great book for learning about Amy from her own words. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here at Anything Smart.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this blog to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2019 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Journalism and Truth

With the recent accusations against Virginia Lieutenant Governor Justin Fairfax the debate about what the news media should publish, and what it should not publish, has erupted again. We saw the same kinds of questions about the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Should these kinds of accusations be published, or should they be kept secret?

From what I have read about the new Virginia scandal, Associate Professor at Scripps College Vanessa Tyson contacted The Washington Post in late 2017 with her story about Fairfax sexually assaulting her some 13 years before. The Post investigated the story and, when they could not find corroboration, decided not to publish it.

Despite The Post's hesitation back in 2017 Tyson's story has now surfaced again and this time it is being widely publicized.

So, what is the media supposed to publish, and what should it keep secret?

Some people seem to think the press should not publish any statement or claim or accusation unless they can PROVE that it is true. I think that is wrong. I don't believe the press is supposed to publish only what they can prove to be true after a long and careful investigation. I think the press is supposed to tell the truth in a different way: reporters are supposed to tell us truthfully what they see and what they hear, what they read in official documents and what people tell them about newsworthy figures.

I worked briefly for a small town newspaper years ago and my specialty was covering obscure town meetings. I saw my job as being the eyes and ears of the public. I saw my job as telling people, "If you had been at this meeting, this is what you would have seen and heard."

If somebody in a meeting said something I thought was true, I reported what they said. If somebody in a meeting said something I thought was false, I reported what they said. This is what I believe day-to-day journalism is supposed to do.

Day-to-day journalism cannot wait days, months, or years to report on some "final truth." Day-to-day journalism is supposed to publish what reporters see and hear, what they read and what they are told, as one step - maybe an EARLY step - in the truth-seeking process. It is this kind of reporting that can help to uncover the truth by encouraging other people to come forward with additional information, by encouraging other news outlets to ask questions, by putting pressure on official agencies to start investigations.

There are other kinds of journalism, of course. Investigative journalism has more research in it. It is more of a methodical effort to get at the truth. It is halfway between journalism and history. Editorializing has more personal judgment in it and more reflection on what the facts mean. It is halfway between journalism and philosophy.

But "normal" journalism, what I call day-to-day journalism - that's something simpler - that's just a reporter telling people, and telling them every single day: "This is what I saw. This is what I heard."

That's the job.

***

[This is a great book about the career of an investigative journalist.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this blog to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2019 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Save Social Security in 2018

There is an emergency coming for millions of Americans and that's why we need Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now!

Here's the problem:
The big Trump tax bill was supposed to pay for itself. Remember?

Secretary of the Treasury Mnuchin told us straight out, "Not only will this plan pay for itself, but it will pay down the debt."

Even months after the tax bill was passed the Director of the National Economic Council Larry Kudlow was still beating that drum when he declared the deficit "is coming down rapidly."

So... that turned out to be WRONG.

The deficit for 2018 has ballooned to $779 billion, a 17% increase over the previous year, and according to projections the deficit could go over $1 trillion for the next three years!

So the big tax bill did not reduce the deficit.
The deficit has actually increased.
The debt has increased.
We are digging ourselves deeper into the hole.

So what do we do now?

Senate Republican Leader McConnell helped push that big Trump tax bill through Congress and now he has a "plan" for dealing with the increasing debt: cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid to reduce the deficit!

Trump and McConnell and their allies got the big tax bill passed, drove up the debt, and now talk about cutting the benefits many Americans rely on for retirement and medical expenses. We should NOT be happy with this.

The best chance of saving these programs is to put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now! That will force the parties to compromise so we can avoid tax cuts that are too steep to be realistic (the Republican error) and also avoid benefits that are too generous to be affordable (the Democrat error).

If you love Republicans, fine. Vote for them every where else. But if you want to save Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid then put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives right now so neither party will have enough power to destroy these vital programs.

You can watch McConnell's comments here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaAxcPCmBOc

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Reporter and the Pig

I am usually more concerned with results than manners. On the other hand, some people are just so grotesquely discourteous, I have to draw a line.

On October 1, 2018 Trump insulted ABC reporter Cecilia Vega in front of the whole world as she tried to ask a question at a press conference.
He said she never thinks....

Now here's another clue for you all: The most fundamental reason I despise Trump is not because we disagree on political issues, but because he is a repulsive human being.

If you don't believe me ask your mom:

• Did your mom teach you that being rude is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that insulting people is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that making up mocking nicknames for people is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that lying is wrong?
• Did your mom teach you that bragging about yourself all the time is wrong?

Trump does all of these things.

If we were still children, and Trump was the bratty neighbor boy, your mom wouldn't let you play with him, because she wouldn't want you to turn out that way.

Let's try to be good people.
Let's stop rewarding people who are rotten to the core.
Let's stop rewarding people like Trump.

Watch the exchange between the reporter and the pig here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/10/01/trump-insults-abc-reporter-cecilia-vega-you-never-think/1493105002/

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below and the other ones throughout this post to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did the polls in 2016 GET IT WRONG?

I am interested in cases where almost everyone seems to believe something that is actually NOT true.

An interesting example from the 2016 election is that most people seem to believe that: THE POLLS WERE WRONG! I have heard Trump supporters say this and I have heard Trump opponents say this. It is accepted by so many people on both sides of the political divide that it might seem crazy to even challenge it now.

But maybe these are the beliefs - the ones most widely and unquestioningly accepted - that we most need to challenge.

So is this belief true? Were the polls really wrong in 2016?

Let's consider what the polls were saying just before the election. Here is an article that came out the day before the election that discusses the latest poll results. It is called “Presidential Election Polls for November 7, 2016” and appeared in Newsweek.

According to this article “Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton leads her Republican rival Donald Trump by 2.5 points, according to the Real Clear Politics average of most state and national polls. Clinton has 46.8 percent of voter support compared to Trump's 44.3 percent.”

The article also says that “Forecasts still show Clinton winning the election. “FiveThirtyEight” shows Clinton with a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election, while Trump has a 34.5 percent chance of victory.”

***

[So why did Hillary lose in 2016? Read this new book to find out.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

There is additional information in this article but I will focus on the two extracts above to evaluate the claim that “the polls were wrong.”

Before we look at the results of the election I would like to consider four points about the information above: what polls do, what “chance” means, the danger of lazy language, and what did these polls actually measure?

1. What do polls really do?

First, what do polls really do? Well, for one thing, polls do NOT predict the future. Polls tell you what answers people gave at a certain point in time. When you take polls at different points in time you get different results. If people who say “the polls were wrong in 2016” mean that the polls predicted Hillary would win but then Hillary lost, then that just means these people don't understand what polls do.

According to the article we quote from above Hillary had 46.8 percent of voter support at the time the polls reported on were taken. That does not PREDICT she will get 46.8 percent of the vote at some later date. If the election were still several weeks away many things might change, and many voters might change their minds, between the poll and the election. On the other hand, it is probably logical to assume that, if nothing significant has changed between the polls and the election, then Hillary will probably get about as much support as she had in the poll. But this is an ASSUMPTION based partly on the poll and partly on the belief that nothing has changed since the poll. The poll ITSELF does not predict anything about the future.

2. What does "chance" mean?

Second, what does “chance” mean? The article we are studying here says that Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election. This does not mean that Hillary will win! It means exactly what it says, Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning.

Let's illustrate this with an example. Suppose I give you two coins and a cup. I tell you to shake up the coins in the cup and then toss them out onto a table. I tell you “there is a 75 percent chance that there will be at least one head showing when you toss these coins onto the table.” You toss the coins and we see there is no head showing. If you then say, “Ha ha. Your prediction was wrong” you would be mistaken. I did not predict there would be a head showing, I just said there was a 75 percent chance that there would be a head showing and that statement is absolutely true even if, on any particular toss, no head is showing.

This is the same thing that happened to forecasters in the 2016 election. The polls themselves did not predict anything. The forecasts, based partly on polls and partly on other information, did not predict anything either. They did try to calculate the “chance” or “probability” that Hillary would win, and the fact that Hillary lost does not prove those calculations were wrong any more than getting no head when tossing two coins proves that there is NOT a 75 percent chance of seeing at least one head.

[Note: One big difference between tossing coins and having elections is that we can toss the coins many times to see if the calculated 75 percent chance of seeing at least one head really works out over many tries, while we cannot repeat an election many times to see if the calculated probability was correct. Still, the principle is the same. If the probability of something happening, like Hillary winning, is calculated as 65.5 percent, the mere fact that she did not win does not prove that the calculated probability was incorrect.]

3. The danger of lazy language

Third, the danger of lazy language. One of the statements from the article we quoted above is “Forecasts still show Clinton winning the election.” This certainly looks like a prediction that Hillary will win. Notice first, that this statement is not saying that polls show Clinton winning, but rather that forecasts show Clinton winning. But is even that LITERALLY true?

The statement above is immediately followed by another statement that explains what the author means. “FiveThirtyEight shows Clinton with a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election, while Trump has a 34.5 percent chance of victory.” In other words, saying that forecasts show Clinton winning just means that forecasters have calculated that Clinton has a higher probability of winning. As we showed above, even if Hillary loses, which she did, that does not prove that the calculation of her probability of winning was incorrect.

The problem here is just that people sometimes save time by using lazy language. Instead of saying the more accurate “Forecasts calculate that Hillary has a 65.5 percent chance of winning the election” sometimes people take a shortcut and say the less accurate “Forecasts show Hillary winning the election.” We have to be on the lookout for this kind of lazy language and it should usually be fairly obvious from the context of what we are reading.

4. What did the 2016 polls actually measure?

Fourth, what does the poll actually measure? The poll results quoted above, from just before the election, are talking about popular vote and not Electoral vote. It is natural to assume that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the Electoral vote because that is what usually happens. But it does not ALWAYS happen and 2016 was one of those unusual years when the winner of the popular vote did not also win the Electoral vote.

So here again, the fact that Hillary lost the Electoral vote on election day does not mean that a poll measuring popular vote a few days before the election, was wrong.

With all of these technical preliminaries out of the way we are finally ready to look at what actually happened in the election. According to the American Presidency Project Hillary ended up with 48.2 percent of the vote and Trump got 46.1 percent of the vote. What did the last polls say just before the election? According to the article we are discussing the average of poll results was 46.8 percent for Hillary and 44.3 percent for Trump.

This is pretty close agreement between the polls and the election, isn't it?

• The polls showed Hillary at 46.8 percent and she actually got 48.2 percent. A difference of just 3%.
• The polls showed Trump at 44.3 percent and he actually got 46.1%. A difference of just 4%.
• The polls showed Hillary ahead by 2.5 percentage points and at the time of the election she led by 2.1 percentage points.

Anyone who says the polls in 2016 “got it wrong” should take a close look at these numbers. The polls got it right! What caused the surprise was an incorrect assumption that whoever wins the popular vote will also win the Electoral vote.

***

[So why did Hillary lose in 2016? Read this new book to find out what her explanation is.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

A Life of Honor: John McCain

John McCain is gone. From naval officer to combat veteran to prisoner-of-war to United States Senator to Presidential candidate he was a part of American history for more than 50 years.

I have tried my best to be an independent, moderate, intelligent Democrat since 1983 and McCain was a Republican but he was one of the Republicans I most admired. Years ago I made a list of Republicans I could POSSIBLY vote for in a Presidential election and McCain was on that, admittedly short, list.

McCain spent his life in wars and political conflicts and I have spent most of my life in books but there are certain characteristics he had that I try to emulate.

• He believed in fighting for what he believed in which is why he was in Vietnam in the first place.
• He believed you do not take advantage of your position to get special privileges which is why he refused an offer to be released from prison in Hanoi because his father was an Admiral.
• He believed in trying to make America better.
• He believed in finding ways to compromise.
• He believed in criticizing his own side when his own side was wrong.
• Above all McCain believed in honor - telling the truth and doing the right thing, even when that is difficult.

As it happens I did NOT vote for McCain in 2008. In the end I decided the Democrats had the better candidate. BUT, if McCain had won in 2008, I would not have been afraid. I would have known that the United States was in good and honorable hands.

John McCain was a great man. We need more public servants like him in BOTH parties. Sadly, people like John McCain are rare.

There was a famous moment in the 2008 campaign that will go down in history. It was a moment when McCain showed that he would not stoop to dishonor even to win the White House. He would not accept a dishonest attack on his opponent even when that's what the crowd wanted to hear.

Wikipedia described the moment like this: "On October 10, 2008, a female McCain supporter at a rally said she did not trust Barack Obama because "he's an Arab." McCain's rallies had become increasingly vitriolic, with hecklers denigrating Obama and with rallygoers displaying a growing anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-African-American sentiment. McCain replied to the woman, "No ma'am. He's a decent family man, citizen, that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues." McCain's response was considered one of the finer moments of the campaign and was still being viewed several years later as marker for civility in American politics." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2008

And you can see the video of that dramatic moment here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk

***

[This was Senator McCain's last book. A good chance to get to know a fallen hero. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did Trump Take a Chinese Bribe to Help ZTE?

Is Trump selling out the national security of the United States to make money for himself and his family?
That sounds like the plot for a spy novel but there is actually some circumstantial evidence of this that should lead to further investigation.
Consider the case of Chinese phone maker ZTE for example:

1. In 2012 Congress warned that ZTE and Huawei phones could be used for espionage against the United States.
2. In February 2018 the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency all repeated these warnings to a Congressional Committee. They advised Americans not to buy phones from these companies.
3. In the meantime the U.S. Commerce Department took legal action against ZTE for illegally selling equipment to Iran and North Korea.
4. The Pentagon has prohibited the sale of ZTE and Huawei phones on military bases because of the espionage risk.

So, if ZTE has violated US sanctions, and their phones are potentially a threat to US national security, this is certainly not a company the US president would want to help, right?
Well... here comes the interesting part:

1. On May 7, 2018 Ivanka got approval for a number of Chinese trademarks which will help to protect her financial interests in that country.
2. On May 10, 2018 China approved a $500 million loan to an Indonesian development which will include a Trump hotel, residences, and a golf course.
3. On May 13, 2018 Trump surprised the world by announcing that the US government will HELP ZTE and get them back to work FAST....

This is a very suggestive and suspicious sequence of events. Within a single week in May 2018 Ivanka got her trademarks from China, the Indonesian development Trump is associated with got its loan from China, and China got help from Trump on the sanctions against ZTE!
Is this just a strange coincidence, or did China just pay off the Trump family to get the president to help a Chinese company that has been identified as a threat to US national security?
My sources are listed below. If anyone finds an error in the facts I am reporting please let me know.
The Indonesian Project Gets its Loan https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-organization-indonesia-project-will-benefit-from-usd500-million-chinese-government-loan-report-says.html
Ivanka Gets Her Trademarks https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-gets-5-china-trademarks-as-president-works-zte-deal_us_5b0a07eee4b0568a880c0a0d
Trump Decides to Help ZTE https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-defends-reversal-on-chinas-zte/
***
[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]
***
Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Did Trump Obstruct Justice? - A Thought Experiment

Just doing a thought experiment....

Imagine a mayor of a small city:
The Chief of Police in that city is investigating the mayor for possible crimes.
The mayor fires the Chief of Police.
The mayor tells someone that when he did the firing he was thinking that the investigation into him was unjustified.
Later he tells someone else that the firing took the pressure off him....

Now, I'm not a lawyer but I kind of think that, just based on this alone, I might be able to persuade a jury this mayor was trying to interfere in an investigation and obstruct justice.

Just thinkin'.

***

[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Is Trump a Bad Man?

What seems bad to one person may not seem bad to another person because bad is always defined relative to some standard, and people don't all have the same standards.

For example, I have always believed that good people try to develop their minds and learn about the world and understand how things work, but Trump seems ignorant of the most commonplace facts about history or science and shows no obvious interest in learning anything new.

I have always believed that good people tell the truth, but Trump lies without ceasing.

I have always believed that good people are generous and sharing, but Trump is grasping and greedy.

I have always believed that good leaders find ways for everyone to win, but Trump brags about beating his enemies.

I have always believed that good leaders accept the blame when things go wrong and share the credit when things go right, but Trump takes credit for anything he thinks will gild his reputation and blames someone else for everything that goes wrong.

I have always believed that good people are modest and humble, but Trump is proud and arrogant.

I have always believed that good people have some spiritual dimension to their lives and care about values like goodness and beauty, but Trump, as far as I can see, is completely materialistic and cares only about money and fame.

I have always believed that good people treat other human beings with dignity and respect, but Trump is a name caller, an insulter, a bully.

I guess people who like Trump must have different standards than I do, but to me, relative to everything I have ever believed in, Trump is a bad man.

That's why I have to fight him, and all that he stands for.

If you see some good in Trump please share it in the comments section.

***

[Very important book about how people are persuaded in a post-truth world.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Spirit of the Framers....

I love this little story about John Adams as an old man:

"When one young man tried to congratulate him for belonging to a truly heroic generation, Adams felt obliged to correct him: 'I ought not to object to your reverence for your fathers, meaning those concerned with the direction of public affairs,' he cautioned, 'but to tell you a very great secret, as far as I am capable of comparing the merit of different periods, I have no reason to believe that we were better than you are.' "

When we study the Constitutional Convention we see that the participants were smart, but there are lots of smart people around now.

And yet, in 1787, a group that disagreed on many issues, ultimately wrote a complete Constitution for an entirely new government, that was then accepted by the people of every single state! Now, in 2017, we can't even get a health care bill passed, or reach a compromise on gun safety.

I think the biggest difference is that in 1787 leaders were debating HONESTLY, which doesn't mean they never shaded the truth but that they were sincerely trying to solve a problem. In 2017 leaders are not really trying to solve problems, they are trying to WIN and make their opponents look bad.

I think that is the difference.

I think if we could get people to argue less about parties and factions - which are hopeless arguments that never end - and argue more about problems and solutions - which are practical arguments that can lead to progress - we might be able to recapture some of the spirit of 1787 and make the world a better place!

***

[Read this great book about the people who started the United States.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Was Colluding with Russia OK?

This morning on CNN there was a discussion with a group of Trump supporters. One of the questions they were asked was something like: Does it bother you there might have been collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia? All but one of the group of seven said no, it doesn't bother them. As seeming justification for their position they said the US has interfered in foreign elections.

It sounds like they are trying to make the argument that: BECAUSE the US has interfered in foreign elections THEREFORE, it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections and since it is OK for foreign countries to interfere in our elections THEREFORE, it is OK for Americans to collude with foreign countries who are interfering in our elections.

Is this a good argument?

Now many people don't care if they are making good arguments. When many people set out to defend their TRIBES they don't care about facts or logic, they just defend their tribe at any cost.

But WE are not like that.... WE are intelligent human beings who want to think carefully and make sure we have good reasons for what we believe and what we do.

So let's examine the argument I heard this morning.

One way to examine an argument is to apply it to a different, but similar situation, and see if it still makes sense.

***

What if we were not talking about an election, what if we were talking about business instead? Let's apply the election argument to a business case and see if it still makes sense.

BECAUSE my employer is trying to undersell a competitor in order to win a contract THEREFORE, it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer to win the contract and since it is OK for our competitor to try to undersell my employer THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our competitor in trying to undersell my employer.

That doesn't really work does it? It does not follow from the fact that my company is trying to undersell a competitor that it is OK for me to collude with the competitor in trying to undersell my company. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would certainly be fired.

***

Let's try another example. What if my country is fighting a battle against an enemy during a war. Let's see how the argument looks in that situation:

BECAUSE my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for the enemy to try to defeat my country in battle and since it is OK for our enemy to try to defeat my country in battle THEREFORE, it is OK for me to to collude with our enemy in trying to defeat my country in battle.

That doesn't work either does it? It certainly does not follow from the fact that because my country is trying to defeat an enemy in battle that it is OK for me to collude with the enemy in trying to defeat my own country in battle. In fact, if I were caught doing that, I would be accused of disloyalty and I would most likely be charged with treason, and possibly executed for my crime.

***

So an argument might sound reasonable to us just because it supports what we want to believe. But if we apply that argument to other situations and see that it makes no sense than it probably makes no sense in the place where it was originally used either.

Based on this analysis our conclusion is that even if the US has interfered in foreign elections, whether rightly or wrongly, it does not follow from this that an American is justified in colluding with a foreign country to interfere in our elections. In fact, colluding with a foreign country to interfere in a US election would prove that you were disloyal to your country and to its political system, and a person who is disloyal to the US should certainly not be working for the US government.

[Based on the direction we are moving now it might be wise to learn about the last time a dangerous President had to be removed. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Trump Hypothesis

Shortly after we found out about the meeting between Trump, Jr., Manafort, Kushner, and the "Russian government lawyer," we found out there were more people in the room. One of them was connected with Russian counter-intelligence. However this particular detail turns out... it just felt like the last straw to me.

I'm going to propose what I now think is a very reasonable hypothesis for testing:

"In 2015-2016 the Russian government and Russian intelligence launched an operation to put a friendly person into the White House, someone who would give them favorable treatment over sanctions, the Ukraine, and other issues. They used a variety of methods they are known to have used in other countries. At some point, the campaign they were helping began communicating with them and cooperating with them in this operation and the Russian choice for 2016 is now the President of the United States."

The first part of the hypothesis - that there was a Russian operation - is already supported by overwhelming evidence. The second part of the hypothesis - that an American Presidential candidate cooperated with a Russian intelligence operation designed to make him President - is becoming more likely with every new revelation.

So that's my hypothesis. Now we will test it with all the available evidence. Let's see if it's true. If it is not true, no harm done. If it is true, this will be a tragedy for the United States, and an embarrassment of epic proportions.

***

[Now that Trump is President we better learn all we can about him. This book looks like a good place to start. Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is!]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump's "Little" Conflict of Interest in Turkey

To be honest, and regretfully, I have to say I don't think we have an impeachment case against Trump yet. We might GET one, but as far as I know, we don't have it YET.

Impeachment is a very serious step that could affect the country for generations or even centuries to come. That's NOT the kind of thing you want to play with.

On the other hand, I think it is very likely that Trump will eventually give us a case for impeachment. And when that case gets made it will likely involve conflicts of interest.

This excellent article talks about three conflicts of interest that are already worrying. The one that caught my attention involves Trump and the country of Turkey. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2017/04/20/Trump-Family-Inc-3-Conflicts-Interest-Could-Pave-Way-Impeachment

Recently President Erdogan held a referendum in Turkey and won great new powers for himself. Many people think it is a bad thing that Erdogan seems to be turning himself into a dictator. Many people think the referendum was won through voter fraud. But Trump? Well, Trump called Erdogan and congratulated him.

Why would Trump congratulate a man who may have just cheated his way into a dictatorship? Is it because he thinks that is what is best for America? Or is it because he has a conflict of interest with his business ventures in Turkey and wants to keep Erdogan favorably disposed towards him?

Maybe you don't believe me when I say Trump has a conflict of interest in Turkey? Let's call a witness... named Donald Trump. This is what he said in an interview back in December 2015: "I have a little conflict of interest [in Turkey] 'cause I have a major, major building in Istanbul. It's a tremendously successful job. It's called Trump Towers — two towers, instead of one, not the usual one, it's two.”

So is Trump making nice with the Turkish strong man to promote America's interests? Or to promote Trump's interests? How can we know?

And that's why the President of the United States should not have business interests in foreign countries.

Sooner or later one of Trump's conflicts of interests is going to sink its teeth into him hang on. And then we will have a real case for impeachment.

***
[This book is already making the case for impeaching Trump! Please buy it, read it, let me know how it is! :-)]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump's Wild Accusation!

Suppose the President of the United States accused you of a crime even though he had no real evidence? Suppose he ordered another part of the government, maybe Jeff Session's Justice Department for example, to dig up the evidence needed to prove you were guilty? What would you do? How would you defend yourself against the most powerful man in the world and the very agency that's supposed to protect your rights, not trample them underfoot?

This is pretty much what Trump did to Obama a couple of weeks ago when he accused the former president of "wiretapping" him. One of the tweets where this accusation was made called Obama "sick" and a "bad guy." It seems Trump is not saying that he was tapped legally in the course of a justified investigation because then it wouldn't make sense to call Obama "sick." Even though Trump recently took an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the right of American citizens to due process, he must have been publicly accusing the former president of tapping him illegally, of committing a crime that a person could go to jail for.

Naturally, Trump was asked for proof of his accusation, or even some reasonable evidence that it might be true. So far no proof or reasonable evidence has been forthcoming. Incredibly, when the Trump administration was asked for proof, it said that Congress should investigate and find the proof itself!

The House Intelligence Committee insisted the Justice Department turn over any evidence it had supporting Trump's claim. The documents were delivered Friday. Today the Republican Chairman of the Committee said they did not contain any evidence supporting Trump's accusation.

“Was there a physical wiretap of Trump Tower? No, but there never was, and the information we got on Friday continues to lead us in that direction,” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/19/no-new-evidence-to-support-trumps-wiretap-claims-house-intelligence-chairman-says/?utm_term=.3ba2f6645428

***
[Check out this great new book about the 2016 election.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

So the President of the United States accused an American citizen of a crime with no evidence and asked Congress to find the evidence for him. Fortunately for Obama he is famous, and he can hire lawyers if need be, and the press is sure to keep a close eye on this case.

But what if the presdent goes after private citizens like this? What if he goes after people who cannot hire lawyers? What if he goes after people who are not famous? What if he goes after people more quietly and the story is not covered by the press?

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump's Conflicts of Interest

Trump has said the president "can't have a conflict of interest." This is obviously false. Anyone can have a conflict of interest. What Trump was trying to say, in his confused way, is that there are no laws against the president having a conflict of interest, but that is a separate question. There is no doubt that a president can have a conflict of interest and that such conflicts could influence the president's decisons. Here is some coverage of Trump's foolish remark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieJPiMS5rao

One kind of conflict of interest for a public official happens when he or she has to make a decision between the public good and the official's own financial interests. If an official knows that a certain decision will benefit the people but will harm the official's wealth will he or she really be able to make this decision objectively?

A classic illustration of this difficulty occurred when President Eisenhower appointed Charles Edward Wilson, the President of General Motors, to be Secretary of Defense. During his confirmation hearings Wilson was told he would have to sell his stock in General Motors in order to avoid conflicts of interest. He tried to argue against this requirement by famously saying "...for years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa."

Wilson may have been completely sincere in his belief that there would never be a conflict between the interests of the United States and the interests of General Motors. The problem is - he might have only believed that because he owned a big pile of GM stock!

The great American writer Sinclair Lewis captured the problem eloquently when he said "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!"

Trump has spent his whole life making decisions designed to increase or protect his wealth. Will he suddenly, now, be able to make decisions that would hurt his financial position if those are the decisions required for the good of the country? Wouldn't it be much wiser for him to avoid such conflicts of interest as every other modern president has done?

This excellent article in The Atlantic gives a long list of Trump's conflicts of interest that could influence him to make decisions benefiting himself rather than our country: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/03/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

Consider just one example: Trump's recent trademark win in China. After fighting to protect his trademark in China for more than 10 years Trump finally won his case in a Chinese court just last month. The timing of this is fascinating and disturbing. Is China trying to get some kind of leverage over Trump? Will it work?

This trademark deal is obviously very important to Trump. He has been trying to get it for more than a decade. It could mean a lot of money for him, and his children, and his grandchildren.

***
[Check out this great new book about the 2016 election.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Trump promised during the campaign that he would be tough on China for using unfair trade practices against the United States. I don't know if being tough on China is the right policy here but what if it is? Will Trump really be tough on China when that government might retaliate by taking away the trademark protection that he has wanted for so long and that is so valuable to him and his family?

This Chinese trademark issue is just one example. Trump has MANY conflicts of interest that will make it difficult for him to make objective decisions in cases where what is needed for the good of the country is different from what is needed for his own financial interests.

The election is over and Trump is president. Even so, we still have a right and a duty to watch his actions closely and intelligently. If it becomes clear he is using his position as president to benefit himself at the expense of the nation then we have ways to remove him from office.

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

The Orwellian Age of Trump

If you still care about truth this might be the most important article you read today: Why Nobody Cares the President is Lying. Conservative commentator Charlie Sykes explains how years of attacks on the main stream media have finally resulted, not just in opposition to what are considered media lies, but to a disregard for truth itself.

He writes: “For years, as a conservative radio talk show host, I played a role in that conditioning by hammering the mainstream media for its bias and double standards. But the price turned out to be far higher than I imagined. The cumulative effect of the attacks was to delegitimize those outlets and essentially destroy much of the right’s immunity to false information. We thought we were creating a savvier, more skeptical audience. Instead, we opened the door for President Trump, who found an audience that could be easily misled.”

Sykes quotes former world chess champion and now Russian political activist Garry Kasparov: “The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

Trump and his team are actively seeking to “annihilate truth.” When people say, “Don't take him literally, take him seriously,” when they talk about “alternative facts,” when the president tells his followers to automatically dismiss every negative poll about him as “fake news,” when he attacks the great American free press as “enemies of the people,” and when he won't even bother to tell the truth anymore about something as easily verified as which recent presidents got the most electoral votes because he knows that his followers just couldn't care less that he is lying yet again, then the destruction of truth is well under way.

When we no longer distinguish between truth and lies, when we no longer agree on the basic principles of logic, or even agree that facts are facts, then we can no longer make good decisions, we can no longer think straight about important issues, we can no longer even communicate in any meaningful way.

So what can we do to keep the truth alive in what Sykes refers to as the “Orwellian age of Donald Trump?”

These are my suggestions:

1. Read news articles and editorials from both the right and the left. Try the National Review for conservative views and The Nation for liberal ones.
2. Read just one article per day if that's all you have time for but don't keep reading the same side, alternate from right to left, keep exposing yourself to ideas you may not like or agree with.
3. As you read each article try to capture the main point in a statement or sentence.
4. If the main point is a factual statement can you verify that fact from one or two other sources? If you can't, be very cautious about accepting it. If you can, be very cautious about NOT accepting it.
5. If the main point of the article is a statement concluding a logical argument can you you identify the premises or inputs to the argument?
6. Once you have identified the premises can you verify they are true?
7. If the premises are true then analyze the argument to see if the conclusion stated in the article really follows from them.
8. If the conclusion does not follow from the premises then reject the argument. If it does, then accept the argument.

If we keep reading and thinking, about ideas we agree with as well as ideas we don't agree with we might still end up on opposite sides in political debates but at least we will be on the same side in respecting - and searching for - the truth.

***
[Check out this great new book about the 2016 election.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***
Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump Doesn't Seem Very Smart After All

Is Donald Trump smart enough to be president? There is a lot of evidence suggesting the answer to that question is "No!"

An intelligent person can make distinctions between different things: true things and false things, for example, or good things and bad things. The ability to judge and evaluate is part of the definition of being smart. A person who can't examine two different things and see how they are similar and how they differ may have some wonderful qualities but it is certain that he or she is not very smart.

Trump has a lot of trouble making these kinds of distinctions, which suggests he is not operating at a very high level of intelligence, certainly not at the level we need in a president.

The most recent example of this came during an interview with Bill O'Reilly where Trump was asked if he respected Russian dictator Vladimir Putin and he said he did. O'Reilly came back by saying: “He’s a killer, though. Putin’s a killer.” Trump's response: “There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What, do you think our country’s so innocent?”

Trump has said so many outrageous things in the last 18 months that we have become jaded: we do not notice how shocking this answer really is. Trump is denying that there is any essential difference in the moral standing of the United States as compared to that of Russia. He can't really tell the difference between a country that is based on a belief in freedom and equal rights - the country of Washington and Lincoln, and another country that is based on dictatorship and terror - the country of Lenin and Stalin.

Now it is true that the United States has done bad things in the world. There has often been a terrible gap between the ideals of the United States and the reality. We have to keep working to improve and we have to keep moving in the direction of our best beliefs and principles, but for Trump to not see the difference between the United States, which has fought on the right side of history and Russia, which has fought on the wrong side, is very worrisome.

This strange and scary moral confusion we see in Trump has been seen before. In an interview during the election Joe Scarborough told Trump about Putin: “He kills journalists that don’t agree with him.” Trump's response: “Well, I think that our country does plenty of killing, too, Joe."

For Trump there is simply no moral distinction between the United States and Russia! How can a man with that kind of moral blindness possibly make good decisions?

Other Republican leaders have no difficulty seeing the moral difference between the United States and Russia:

1. Senator Rubio tweeted: “When has a Democratic political activist been poisoned by the GOP or vice versa? We are not the same as Putin.”
2. Senator McConnell said that Putin is a "former KGB agent and a thug" and “I don’t think there’s any equivalency between the way Russians conduct themselves and the way the United States does."
3. Senator McCain agrees that Putin is "a murderer and a thug."

How come our president can't bring himself to speak with this same kind kind of moral clarity and moral intelligence?

There are many other examples of Trump's inability to make crucial distinctions. He has a hard time separating fact from fantasy, for example.

1. He spent years suggesting that President Obama wasn't really an American until suddenly reversing himself during the election.
2. In the final days of the campaign Trump raised the ludicrous possibility that Ted Cruz's father had been involved in the Kennedy assassination.
3. Now he claims that millions of people voted illegally last election day even though he has not presented any evidence to support such a claim.

How can a man with such limited ability to evaluate whether claims are true or false make good decisions for the country?

If Trump is too confused to distinguish between true and false, too baffled to separate good from evil, too lost in a fog to tell better from worse, then he is surely not smart enough to be president.

Check out this article for more on Trump's latest outrageous Putin comment: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-repeats-his-respect-for-killer-vladimir-putin

***
[Check out this great new book about the 2016 election.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump's "Muslim Ban" Goes to Court

It may come as a surprise given the fuss that was made over Obama's executive orders, and the fuss that is now being made about Trump's, but there is nothing inherently wrong or controversial about this type of presidential action.

Of course, the President of the United States is responsible for managing the executive branch of the federal government and executive orders are simply one way he does this.

The article linked to below has a lot of interesting and useful information about executive orders. Among other things it informs us that they have been used going all the way back to George Washington and include some very famous events in U.S. history. The Emancipation Proclamation, for example, was one of Lincoln's executive orders.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/27/what-is-an-executive-order-and-how-do-president-trumps-stack-up/?utm_term=.437f078307bb

As I suppose everyone knows, the president is granted certain powers by the Constitution. Over the years, the president has also been granted many additional powers by Congress. One way the president exercises these Constitutional and legal powers is by issuing executive orders.

Whenever a president does something the party opposing him doesn't like the action is going to be politically controversial but, as long as the action is within the Constitutional and legal powers given to the president, he is not overstepping his bounds or becoming a “dictator.”

If the Congress or other citizens really believe a president is doing something unconstitutional or illegal the president can be taken to court. In more extreme cases the president could be impeached and removed from office.

Obama, for example, was taken to court over his order shielding millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation. A lower court blocked this order and then the Supreme Court deadlocked on the appeal leaving the order blocked.

Now Trump is being taken to court over his “Muslim ban” order.

***

[Check out this great new book about the 2016 election.]

[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

***

According to this article it appears that four federal judges have at least temporarily blocked parts of Trump's controversial executive order.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/29/us/trump-refugee-ban-muslim-executive-order.html?_r=0

We will have to see if any or all of these judges declare parts of this order illegal or unconstitutional and therefore permanently cancelled.

With the very inexperienced, erratic, and dangerous Trump in the White House it is comforting that our courts are still doing their job of protecting the people from abuses of government power.

If you have the time or the interest you can read the full text of the “Muslim ban” executive order for yourself by clicking on this link.

Full text of Trump's "Muslim Ban" executive order.

Copyright © 2017 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Comrade Trump: The Russian Candidate

Is it possible the Russians are finally getting what they have always wanted since the end of World War II, seventy-one years ago? A friendly tool, a "useful idiot," in the White House of the United States of America? Let's look at the evidence.

Russia Interfered in the US Election

According to Factcheck.org 16 U.S. Intelligence agencies and at least three private security firms have all concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election by releasing hacked information.

This conclusion was based on the methods, techniques, and software used by the hackers.

By October 7, 2015 U.S. intelligence agencies were sufficiently confident of their conclusions to release the following statement:

"The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities."

See http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/trump-russia-u-s-election/

The Russians Wanted Trump to Win

If the Russians were just interfering in a U.S. election to cause confusion and demoralization that would be bad enough. But now we learn the CIA believes the Russians were specifically trying to swing the election for Trump and that is an order of magnitude worse.

Evidence for this conclusion includes the fact that hackers only released information on the Democrats and no information on the Republicans although it now appears they had both.

See http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/12/donald-trump-really-really-doesnt-want-hear-about-how-russia-got-him-elected

Trump Wants to Do Favors for Russia

These conclusions are not 100% certain. Intelligence assessments almost never are. But if we find corroborating or supporting evidence these intelligence conclusions become much more believable.

Did trump ever say anything during the campaign that would make the Russians want him to be president? In fact he did, several times.

[Unless something very unusual happens with the electoral college Donald Trump is about to become President. We better learn all we can about him so here is his first book.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

He strongly hinted that he would be willing to consider dropping the sanctions against Russia put in place after they invaded the Crimea in 2014.

He suggested the U.S. might not defend some NATO allies.

He suggested we should give the Russians a free hand in Syria.

At one point Trump even asked the Russians to release Hillary's emails if they had them, suggesting he would not be too upset about Russian hacks if they were advantageous to him. He later said he was just being sarcastic when he made this statement.

He praised Putin repeatedly, at least once calling him a better leader than Obama.

All of these points can be quickly verified with an internet search. For a couple of them see:

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-crimea/493280/

Trump Wants to Make Money from Russia

But why would Trump want to help Russia? Is their some reason why Trump would do favors for Russia?

In 2007 Trump said "Russia is one of the hottest places in the world for investment," and that he planned to "be in Moscow at some point."

In 2008 Donald Trump, Jr. Said "In terms of high-end product influx into the U.S., Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets," he said at a conference that year, according to news reports. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

There is documentation of numerous Trump efforts to launch real estate projects in Russia which seems to be a longstanding goal of his.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/the-trump-russia-money-question-in-24-steps/?utm_term=.f4ecc30c627b

Is it too Late to Stop the Russian Candidate?

None of this constitutes certain proof but we almost never have certain proof in life. We even convict people of capital crimes and execute with less than certain proof. For most things in life we only require a "preponderance of evidence" – a showing that something is more likely true than not.

So now let's put together the pieces of the Trump-Russia puzzle:

Trump has made a lot of money from Russia and he would like to make a lot more.

As president, Trump will be in a position to do favors to Russia to get support for his money-making schemes. As shown above Trump has even told us, and Russia, publicly, what some of those favors are likely to be.

Russia seems to have noticed Trump's offer of a deal. They responded to Trump's statements by supporting him and releasing hacked documents that would help him get elected.

So now, finally, the Russians have what they want. After working against U.S. interests all over the world for a lifetime they have finally found a "useful idiot," a man so obsessed with making money that he will close his eyes to the danger Russia poses and give then a free hand to do what they will.

This is a reason American voters should have rejected Trump at the polls in every state back on election day.

This is a reason the presidential electors should still consider carefully before they vote on December 19.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

Trump is the Bull in the China Shop

Trump is not sworn in yet and he has already started disrupting world peace. So far as I know we still promise to protect Taiwan if China should attack but, to keep peace with mainland China we officially recognize them as the government of all of China including Taiwan.

Since 1979 the U.S. and Taiwan have been very careful to maintain ONLY unofficial relations with each other to avoid antagonizing China. As part of that "unofficialness" there has not been any publicized phone call between the Presidents of the US and Taiwan in 37 years.

Trump appears to be reversing that long-standing policy by having a phone conversation with the President of Taiwan. If China interprets this as an insult to its sovereignty that could put Taiwan at risk. It could also put US armed forces at risk if they are called upon to protect Taiwan from Chinese aggression.

Certainly we can hope that calm will be restored and nothing terrible will happen but it really would have been better, and smarter, for Trump not to take this call.

I am afraid there will be other incidents like this. I do not see Trump as a careful or subtle person, more like a bull in a china shop.

Found more details on Trump's latest embarrassment in this article:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-lodges-complaint-with-us-over-trumps-taiwan-phone-call/ar-AAl6cid?OCID=ansmsnnews11

[Unless something very unusual happens with the electoral college Donald Trump is about to become President. We better learn all we can about him so here is his first book.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Wayne Gadway