President-elect answers to educational fraud

Mitt Romney

During the same week as Donald Trump's inauguration, he will be paying off the victims of an allegedly fraudulent scam he perpetrated through his infamous Trump University. It's for the whole world to see, a siting U.S. president that will have to pay $25 million to the victims of Trump University's real estate seminar program. Actually, this country has transcended the ridicule we have taken for the election of a psychopathic liar and is trying desperately to figure out how to deal with it. It won't be easy since we are stuck with him for four years...perhaps not.

MSNBC says...

"...as things stand, Donald Trump is poised to become the first American in history to headline a presidential inauguration and payoff the victims of an allegedly fraudulent scam in the same week."

God, how far back do we have to go to come up with a comparison to this clown-like presidency. The New Republic comments we have to go back to the 19th century for John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, who all were more qualified than Trump, but at the same time "...did share his reckless temperament." Steve Benen says...

"I continue to think this is one of the under-appreciated parts of the president-elect’s background. The 'Trump University' operation is awfully tough to defend, and it offers some striking parallels to the broader political circumstances: a controversial celebrity, eager to capitalize on his notoriety, made ridiculous and unrealistic claims, which he swore without evidence would produce amazing results. Those who chose to trust him, soon after, came to regret it."

This all sounds rather familiar with the running off at the mouth about everything but saying nothing, we heard during Donald Trump's campaign. Joshua Kendall makes this statement...

"While many have accused Donald Trump of having an abnormally large ego, the opposite is true: His ego happens to be so small that it is barely able to control any of the rumblings of his own id. Whenever Trump feels slighted, he finds it necessary to start a holy war—with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims, or even Pope Francis himself."

Is it possible that Trump has an inferiority complex, because if he does it is certainly justified when you consider the vulgar and crude things he has said about women, immigrants, Muslims, and who knows what else done in private. And the man has sexual fantasies about his own daughter?

So, it would appear the educational fraud is just one of the incoming President's failings that the world is now marveling over.

T-rump stupid things

“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”

A trump meeting with Albert Gore recently was considered productive by Gore. But don't bank on it.

FDA loses ability to demand thorough drug testing

But it only takes away

He's not even in the White House and the onslaught is already here, he, of course, being Donald Trump. The 21st Century Cures Act is disguised as a boon to research and development and the deception was apparently good enough to entice the naive Democrats, including President Obama. Here's what the LA Times says...

"The 21st Century Cures Act is a huge deregulatory giveaway to the pharmaceutical and medical device industry, papered over by new funding for those research initiatives."

Bernie Sanders calls it a "corporate giveaway," and Elizabeth Warren voiced her concerns stating it favors the pharmaceutical companies. The Times claims it depends on funding that may never be provided through Congress. Michael Carome, director of the Health Research Group at the advocacy organization Public Citizen states it will contribute to further erosion of the standards now followed by the Federal Drug Administration. And with the history of this organization, it cannot afford any loosening of its control over new drugs.

Here's a personal experience with the Act. I am on a gamma globulin infusion to improve my immune system. I am 84 years old and bronchitis has almost put me in the hospital in critical condition at least two times. The doc checked my immune system, finding it very low, thus, the infusion medication. Because the gg is so hard to obtain, the monthly cost to Medicare is $10,000. To me that is absurd, especially for an 84-year old. Apparently, the sponsors of the Cures Act agreed so Medicare will no longer provide this drug.

Okay, I'm 84 and who knows what the longevity holds, but what about those younger on Medicare that this could be life-saving? The pharmacy that provides my infusion tells me there will be alternatives, one an intravenous delivery of this drug or something similar. My wife is giving me the infusion now subcutaneously, but the new system will require a trained nurse to come to my home to give it to me intravenously. What kind of sense does this make, unless the new drug I get is much cheaper, thus, much less effective? This hasn't been explained to me by my pharmacy.

Is the 21st Century Cures Act just the beginning? Here's more from Bernie Sanders...

"At a time when Americans pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, this bill provides absolutely no relief for soaring drug prices. The greed of the pharmaceutical industry has no limit, and this bill includes numerous corporate giveaways that will make drug companies even richer.”

Has President Barack Obama lost his mind?
  

Clinton popular vote surges again

No losing presidential candidate in history has received as many popular votes as did Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump, the president-elect. 2.9 million, up 400,000 since the last count. The election is history but the story is slowly changing from surprise Trump victory to why he won and what is wrong with the system. What's wrong with the system is the Electoral College that put Trump in the White House and how it transcends the power of the people. I railed on this in an earlier post, "Dump the Electoral Party...NOW" that shows the inadequacy of the College.

What bothers me from a CNN article is a statement by Trump, "...that he would have won the popular vote, too, if that had been his focus. Here's his actual comment...

"I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote -- but would campaign differently."

Is the implication here that Hillary Clinton campaigned strictly for the popular vote and let Donald Trump beat her in strategy?  If so, her years spent in politics were wasted. But I don't think that's all, nor is it the primary reason she lost. Clinton claims the Comey letter beat her but many think that was only minor to other faults. High on the list is message, or a real lack of, to reach the white working class, African Americans, young people and Hispanics. They needed more assurance from her and they didn't get it. Too much dependence on political data and not what the grassroots think.

Kellyanne Conway is a sharp political strategist and it is obvious that things started to turn Trump's way when she came on board. I remember her saying early on that her plan was just to let Trump be Trump. You can't argue with this now, and his continued diarrhea of the mouth collected enough uneducated rednecks to elect him. If I didn't know better, I would swear that the Trump campaign found that particular demographic in census data. I talk uneducated rednecks but to the other extreme, doctors respond to his promise to clean up insurance company paperwork.

We could look back some day and call this a "niche" election, and Donald Trump by running off at the mouth with his meandering, chaotic messages, was able to hit just enough people with slots they cared about to win the election. God help us!

T-rump stupid things

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”

Trump, speaking of the loyalty of his followers and some felt could be true.

To hack or not to hack

Russia covert cyberattacks

Apparently, the Russians decided to hack and there are many who think this had a negative effect on Hillary Clinton's campaign for the presidency. Taking it a step further, the U.S. has concluded that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the hacking. I did an earlier post, "Why did Putin want Donald Trump in the White House?" that offered two options...

One, Putin feels Trump will look ridiculous to the rest of the world with his show business background and lack of experience, thus, make the U.S. more vulnerable in foreign affairs.
Two, the president-elect would undo all the sanctions placed on Russia by the United States putting Russia in a better financial position.

Any way you cut it, this country loses. Here's a statement by NBC News...

"The CIA has concluded that Russia mounted a covert intelligence operation to influence the U.S. election in an effort to help Donald Trump win, a congressional official knowledgeable on the matter told NBC News."

But the Senate's resident idiot, Mitch McConnell has rejected bipartisan pressure to create a select committee to investigate what has now been confirmed is Russian cyberattacks designed to tamper with the U.S. 2016 election. McConnell thinks his two Senate minions, Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), both on the Senate Intelligence Committee, can handle it. Outgoing Senate minority leader Harry Reid says...

"...that keeping the investigation limited to the committees could be an intentional effort by McConnell to limit the effectiveness of the probe."

Now you can understand why I have designated Mitch McConnell the resident Senate idiot. The GOP won the election, McConnell was reelected recently--six more years of idiocy--and this slime ball is afraid an investigation will uncover the fact that everything above is accurate. And that Trump could have colluded with Putin to win the election. Another known fact is that the president-elect has yearned to do business in Russia for years with no luck. His connections to the country span three decades and Time has shown... 

"...since the first hack of a Clinton-affiliated group took place in late May or early June, is that several of Trump’s businesses outside of Russia are entangled with Russian financiers inside Putin’s circle."

The election may be over, and the electors may have confirmed Donald Trump's presidency, but the mystery continues of just how did the 2016 election really conclude. 

Lions share of nation skeptical of Trump presidency

President Obama entered the White House with American optimism at 32%, 34% of the country satisfied with his election. Donald Trump will take office with 22% optimism, 23% satisfied with his election. But the kicker is 29% are pessimistic about the president-elect, with this figure only 9% under Obama. NBC reports, "That's a significantly worse outlook than Americans expressed after the elections of both Barack Obama and George W. Bush." I have no doubt that Donald Trump has several excuses to justify these numbers but an election after-market has spoken.

Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates says...

"Usually elections settle arguments and the nation comes together, at least in the short term. Today, hard feelings persist on both sides of the partisan divide. It's as if the 2016 campaign has never ended."

It appears to me that all this skepticism is well justified by the people Trump has chosen to support him...

Steve Mnuchin, Sec. of Treasury who worked at Goldman Sachs for 17 years, a firm that had to be bailed out by the government due to risky investments. Jeff Sessions, Atty. Gen. who was denied a federal judgeship. Andrew Puzder, Sec. of Labor, a hardliner against any increase in minimum wage. Betsy Devos, Sec. Education, wants to get rid of public school system. Tom Price, Sec. Health and Human Services, wants to scuttle Obamacare. These are only a few and many are billionaires.

A statistic that cannot be ignored is the fact that 46% of the American public still gives him a poor rating, compared to 40% who are positive. And the confidence in Donald Trump's election all comes from his base voters, not those who didn't vote for him. There are 92% of Trump voters who believe the man can bring change to Washington--with Clinton only 20%--but have these people considered just what kind of change they want, and is this also what the president-elect wants. So far, Donald Trump has not convinced many of us he isn't in all of this just to promote his business.