Monday, June 03, 2019

Tariffs, a good or bad Idea?


The argument that “imposing tariffs on X is imposing a tax on Americans” is widely touted by political pundits, by Politicians, and even by news people. Given the President’s clear “America First” position, which side is right?
Goals of Study:
1.      Losses and costs
1.1.   How much money has flown out of this country to Mexico and China?
1.2.   How many families have lost their homes, savings, possibility for advancement because their jobs have been transferred to Mexico and China? What is the financial impact of this change?
1.3.   How much money will the tariffs cost consumers?
2.      Gains
2.1.   How much money will return to this country from Mexico and China if we have a 0-balance trade with them?
2.2.   How many American jobs will be created through that 0-balance of trade?
2.3.   Is there a gain or a loss in the President’s policies, and what are his chances of success.
I wish the news would provide answers to these questions, but I haven’t seen any.
In the coming days and weeks, I’ll try to answer them from public sources (I have no private ones). I am terribly disappointed that no one is trying to answer them, and if I’m wrong, hope to be corrected while I construct the information.
Methodology:
2.      Losses and costs
2.1.   How much money has flown out of this country to Mexico and China?
2.1.1. Establish the dates at which the imbalances with Mexico and China occurred
2.1.2.Establish their GNP and ours at that date.
2.1.3.Establish their GNP and ours today
2.1.4.Use projection to estimate our GNP today had the traditional GNP percentages held for the period.
2.1.5.Reach conclusions.
2.1.5.1.            What would our GNP have been, and what loss/gain would have been incurred.
2.1.5.2.            Specify confidence in these numbers based on historical evidence.
2.2.   How many families have lost their homes, savings, possibility for advancement because their jobs have been transferred to Mexico and China? What is the financial impact of this change?
2.2.1.Using the dates established in 1.1.1, get the percentage of people employed at the start of the period in all three countries.
2.2.2.Use projection to estimate what the percentage of people employed would be today had the traditional trends for employment held steady.
2.2.3.Reach conclusions.
2.2.3.1.            How many people lost/gained jobs.
2.2.3.2.            The monetary impact of the lost/gained jobs.
2.2.3.3.            Specify confidence in these numbers based on historical evidence.
2.3.   How much money will the tariffs cost consumers?
2.3.1. Research previous eras of tariffs and estimate the percent of the tariff that was passed on to the consumer over the life of the tariff.
2.3.2.Use government estimates of the tariff income as a result of Trump policies.
2.3.3.Apply the percentage established in 2.3.1 to estimate the cost.
2.3.4.Reach conclusions
2.3.4.1.            How much has the consumer paid for the tariff imposed.
2.3.4.2.            Specify the confidence in the number based on historical evidence.
2.4.   Study Conclusions:
2.4.1.Using the fungible loss/gain numbers collected in 2.1-2.3
2.4.1.1.            Establish the loss/gain numbers if the President succeeds, and the confidence that the numbers are correct.
I’d appreciate any help where I’m pointed to papers already answering these questions that are available, or criticisms of the methodology I’m embarking on.


Monday, January 23, 2017

Middle East Derangement Syndrome: Egypt, Turkey and Israel Have All Fallen Prey to Delusions About Trump

Council on Foreign Affairs -- Green Italic comments are from LR.

by Steven A. Cook

January 23, 2017


This article was originally published here on Salon.com on Sunday, January 22, 2017.
At about 3:30 a.m. on Nov. 9, Donald Trump received his first congratulatory phone call as president-elect. It came from Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. In the weeks since then, Egyptian officials pointed to the call as a symbol of a new era in U.S.-Egypt relations, which soured considerably after the July 2013 coup d’état that overthrew the elected government of Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi and brought Sisi to power. Egyptian officials were so happy with the outcome of the election that Sisi reportedly considered attending the inauguration.
Sisi stayed in Cairo, but Turkey’s foreign minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, showed up in person. It is not unusual for some foreign ambassadors to attend the inaugural ceremonies; the presence of someone as senior as Cavusoglu was. A delegation of Israeli settlers also made the trip to celebrate the Trump presidency. No one from the Arab Gulf states attended. Unlike the Egyptians, Israelis and Turks, who seem positively giddy over Trump, the Saudis and Emiratis have taken a more cautious approach to change at the White House — but they nevertheless seem pleased to put the Barack Obama era behind them.
It all seems rather strange given how Trump rode to power, winking at Islamophobes as well as anti-Semites and otherwise appealing to isolationists.
Where are some examples of this? I followed Trump closely and while seeing press allegations, never saw him make any such statements, winking etc. That he is an "anti-Semite" is ridiculous given his children being Jewish, his appointment as ambassador to Israel, the clear delight of the Israeli government at his election.

If there was any sign during the long campaign about Trump’s approach to the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy more generally, it was retrenchment. That is not good for Washington’s major regional allies, yet leaders in these countries seem willing to overlook this inconvenient fact in favor of a fantasy that Trump will be a better steward of their security and American interests than was Obama.

The previous and following paragraphs are pretty ridiculous. Washington major allies, the Saudis and other oil states are among the most undemocratic, autocratic, misogynistic states  in the world. The "fantasy" this idiotic article speaks of, needs to be shown as fantasy, before it is accepted as such.
The Egyptians, for example, are convinced that the Trump administration will offer its unconditional support for Sisi and drop the Bush and Obama administrations’ objections to Egypt’s abysmal record on human rights. For their part, the Turks know that the new administration will support their fight against Kurdish nationalism. Israelis are now confident of American political and diplomatic cover to continue the slow and steady annexation of the West Bank. The Arab Gulf states and Israel, outraged over Obama’s outreach to Iran, are counting on Trump to restore Washington’s adversarial relationship with Tehran.
Even if Trump does what Middle Eastern leaders want him to do, one has to wonder: To what end? How will it make things better? Is there not a significant chance that Trump will make things worse instead? It’s worth remembering that fantasies are by definition alluring, but are rarely satisfying when someone tries to make them come true. The Egyptians seem likely to get what they want: a change in tone in their bilateral relations with Washington. Yet they should keep their enthusiasm in check.

There is an interesting use of "fantasy" in the paragraph above. It's connotation is that it is untrue. Is Cook a seer? Has he been right in the past?  The following are some of his past presentations: 1) When a Phrase Takes On New Meaning: ‘Radical Islam,’ Explained (Why Trump is wrong), 2) Why Turkey Is Salivating for President Trump (because they are both despots and promote the shirtless over the elites).  These are not conducive to make us believe he lives in the real world.
 
Besides the temporary political boost that better relations with Washington will give Sisi, they won’t make the insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula go away or make Egypt’s struggling economy suddenly grow. There is no indication that a Trump administration will be more forthcoming than Obama on military or economic assistance. Trump is about the “art of the deal.” In his transactional world, what is Egypt’s currency? The old Egyptian refrain about being a “force for stability in the region” is getting old — and is no longer accurate. Besides, what does Trump care about the region other than “bombing the [expletive] out of [the self-proclaimed Islamic State]”?
What Sisi has to offer the new administration — international support against the Muslim Brotherhood — is something the Egyptians have already given Trump for free. So we should ignore our friends, after all they are already supporting us! After a moment of self-satisfaction and euphoria that Obama has vacated the Oval Office, the Egyptians are likely to confront the reality that the problem in their relationship with the United States has been in Cairo, not Washington. Egypt is important because of its problems, only one of which interests the new American president — terrorism. And as the American experience over the last 16 years suggests, applying ever-increasing levels of force to the problem does not work. Who agrees with this? It is our ever-decreasing level of force (IRAQ, IRAN, SYRIA) which have led to increasing the problem. We haven't tried the other way since it worked in the pacification of IRAQ under Bush.
It is a similar issue with the Turks, who are setting themselves up for disappointment that Cavusoglu’s vainglorious attendance at the inauguration was an attempt to hide. Trump’s incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, testified at his confirmation hearings that the main Syrian Kurdish fighting force — the People’s Protection Units (YPG) — which the Turkish government (rightly) considers to be a close affiliate of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) — is Washington’s “greatest ally” against the Islamic State. So finally we are on the side of our allies? Isn't that a change to hope for?
The PKK has been waging a terrorist campaign against Turkey since the time Trump was married to his first wife, Ivana. The Obama administration raised the ire of Ankara because it coordinated with the YPG in the fight against the Islamic State, which is also Trump’s priority. How is that making U.S.-Turkey relations great again? At least the Egyptians can make the case to the White House that they are allies in opposing the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, on the other hand, is an Islamist group that gave Egypt’s Muslim Brothers refuge and a platform to delegitimize the Egyptian government. That history is unlikely to sit well in a Trump administration that is profoundly suspicious of all things Islamic.  And don't we have reason to be suspicious of Turkey which is setting itself up as an autocratic, Muslim state protecting Suni's against Iran's Shiite aggression? They have even sent an expeditionary force to Mosul to protect their interests against Iran.
The Israeli government is also psyched about Trump, who plans to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and appointed a settlement-friendly New York bankruptcy lawyer, David M. Friedman, as U.S. ambassador. This was a clear signal that, allegedly unlike Obama, Trump actually “has Israel’s back.” Yet there are signs of potential trouble. As a candidate, Trump called Israeli-Palestinian peace the “ultimate deal.” Despite the long list of failed American efforts to bring this conflict to an end (or maybe because of that), it is hard to imagine that Trump won’t wade into the peace process at some point. That is bound to cause friction between Washington and Jerusalem, no matter how happy Israel’s annexationists are right now. Then again, Trump may very well enable Israel’s settlement project, which will help seal Israel’s permanent occupation, sow further violence, make it difficult to develop ties with important Arab countries and potentially undermine Israeli democracy. It seems that the settlement of the eternal war is not as important as to settle it in Israel's detriment. His assumption that "important Arab countries" will make US and Israel's life difficult forgets the American clout: We no longer need them to provide oil for the world. The US has enough for everybody.
More than anything, it is Trump’s apparent hostility toward Iran that has made the Israelis and their virtual friends among the Gulf countries optimistic about the new administration. During the campaign, the president said he would tear up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal. He also declared that Iran is the “biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world” and that he would counter Iran’s “aggressive push to destabilize and dominate” the Middle East.
Iran is without a doubt a bad actor, but if Trump withdrew the United States from the JCPOA, it probably would not make much difference. That is a multilateral agreement to which the European Union, Russia and China remain committed. The Saudis and Emiratis have indicated that they can live with the deal so long as Washington is tough on Tehran. There is logic to this, of course, but Trump may be less threatening than his rhetoric suggests. He seems inclined to make a deal with the Russians on Syria that would leave Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in place. That would be a big win for the Iranians.
It is reasonable for the Gulf states to expect increased American support in their campaign against the Houthi rebels in Yemen, where Iran has taken advantage of chaos to bleed the Saudis. Beyond that, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates may be disappointed. Trump’s secretary of defense, former Marine general James Mattis, reportedly proposed attacking Iran in retaliation for Tehran-backed militias targeting American soldiers in Iraq in 2011.
Trump may actually be closer to Obama than to Mattis on this issue. A significant aspect of the new president’s campaign-trail appeal was his criticism of George W. Bush’s Iraq invasion and his disdain for the foreign policy elite who have gotten the United States so deeply entangled in the Middle East. There will be no Obama-like rapprochement with Iran, but Trump may decide not to go after the Iranians in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere. You never listened to Trump. It was wrong to go in, once in, it was wrong to leave. We should have stayed and taken their oil, which is the source and funding for the ongoing strife.
Of course there is no way of knowing exactly how Trump will deal with the Middle East’s multiple and complex problems. He seems to have only three ideas about American foreign policy: destroying the Islamic State, cooperating with Russia and challenging China. This may leave him room to maneuver, but that would come at the expense of the coherence and much discussed “leadership” that Obama’s critics claimed he lacked. More than likely, the Trump White House is going to do what candidate Trump did: make it all up as it goes along. That does not bode well. It is unlikely that American power can put the Middle East back together. But it can definitely make things worse. Not even one right. Trump will do what is right for America. He's currently learning what that is from his excellent choice in ministers and advisors.

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

More interaction on Climate Change

Climate change is real.
Just like tobacco companies spent decades buying scientists and politicians to muddy and confuse the evidence on smoking, oil companies have bought scientists and politicians to muddy and confuse the evidence on climate change.
They are helped by legions of Christians systematically taught to distrust facts and condemn evidence as elitist. An analogy - the evidence is solid that the age of the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Scientists can explain the myriad types of evidence that support this conclusion and discuss the changes the earth went through in each era. Likewise, the continental US is approximately 3000 miles across, but of course this number varies depending on exactly where one measures. Let's say someone said "See. See. The number for the width of the US changes. I'm going to ignore evidence for the width of the US and go with my number." To be as wrong as 6k years versus 4.6 billion years, this person would have to believe the US is 19 feet from coast to coast. Consider the massive and overwhelming evidence they would glibly ignore to believe that the width of the continental US is less than 20% of the length of a football field.
Science denial and glorification of ignorance is a threat to our existence. Evidence matters. The evidence for human influenced climate change exists and is conclusive.
The author is right. There are a dozen good reasons to care for our planet. Pick any reason you like. But pick at least one because this planet is the only one we have.

There is no need for conspiratorial theories here. Climate change is real, its been going on for a few billion years. The argument is whether hydrocarbons have had an impact. Models exist in both directions, and differ in their conclusions. Science is trial and error. We once believed the Sun circled the earth, it was "established" science, and the establishment (Church) killed people who disagreed with this "truth". Science is also not up for a vote. Newtonian physics was and is used by the vast majority of Engineers and scientists, but its wrong, as Einstenian physics have shown.
Have patience, tend God's garden, and fill the earth.

Virtually every climate scientist agrees that the global warming we are experiencing for the last 100 years or so is at least in part due to human activity, and in large part due to the massive increases in the burning of hydrocarbons.
Your arguments are specious. 4th and 3rd C. BCE Greek scientists proposed a heliocentric theory. It was always religious superstition that held back this knowledge. And Einsteinian Physics does not refute Newtonian Physics. It improves on it and applies to particle behavior that Newton was not describing.
Virtually every scientist in the 4th & 3rd century were wrong, but not because of superstition, because of lack of complete knowledge. In Akkad, 1500 years earlier, a kind of copernican view was held. Our Pythagorean equations come from the Fourth Century. No need to disparage those scientist.
Newton believed the speed of light to be infinite, and based his f=ma physics on that fact. He was wrong, and investigations of anomalies in Mercury lead to Einstein's equations. No need to disparage him either.
There haven't been level 3 Hurricane touching the US for 11 years, even though global warming suggested increases. The number of global hurricanes (monsoons, etc) has also decreased. New facts change old theories.
I don't believe in the planned mitigation of Global warming, since we are probably at the beginning of a cooling trend (thought so by "most scientists" only 30 years ago). We certainly need to take good care of the Earth, and mitigate carbon and other chemical and human introduced imbalances. But we do not need to hand over our Economy, or our governance to international bodies that do not represent us, and we are not facing an immediate and present danger.

Leonrogson said "There haven't been level 3 Hurricane touching the US for 11 years, even though global warming suggested increases."
This may come as a shock, but the United States is not the only country on the planet.
Hurricanes can and do hit other places.
Here is a summary of Cat 4 hurricanes without the bias.
Hurricane frequency
Period Number Number per year
1851–1900 13 0.26
1901–1950 29 0.58
1951–1975 22 0.88
1976–2000 24 0.96
2001–present 21 1.4
Between 1851 and 1900, the average was .26 Cat 4 hurricanes per year, or about 1 every 4 years. Between 2001 and the present, the average is 1.4 per year, or about 5.5 every 4 years. This is technically called an increase.
Facts are your friends.
Put away the tin foil hat. Responding maturely to global warming is not 'handing over our governance to international bodies." On the other hand, it is necessary for national security, and will create jobs as a bonus.

My information is from NOA, it also stated cat 3 and above storms throughout the world decreased. Facts are facts.
Also, I am not a denier in change, or even that we probably had a hand in it.
Only that there is no crisis, that Engineering can solve the problem by cleaning our coal and carbon, using catalytic ... etc.
You have a sense of urgency I don't share. We both care for the planet.

The agency you are referring to is NOAA not NOA.
Engineering cannot solve a problem that politcal leaders say does not exist. Politicians are collecting big money to pretend global warming is not happening. Remember Inhofe and his snowball? It snowed once in February in Washington DC, proving nothing whatsoever.
We do need to take action. And the longer we stall, the more dramatic the needed changes will be.

You again make the assumption that 1.5 degrees Centigrade in a Century is Armageddon. We disagree on that, and the history of global temperatureshttps://www.bing.com/images/se... shows no change in temperature for the last 18 years, and https://www.bing.com/images/se... shows very little change since 1880. Look at the absolute change -.3 to +.6 not at the impressive upward graph. Only 1C change.

You couldn't be more wrong or ignorant or something. 97% of scientists agree. That's massive. Lark's description of how science deniers come to the conclusions they do is very well stated.

As I mentioned above, science is not democratic. Galileo Galilei was killed because he asserted, through scientific studies, that the earth traveled around the Sun. 99% of the scientist then, were wrong.
Similarly in 1914 99% of all scientists believed in Newtonian Physics, but it too was incorrect. Einstein did not believe in Quantum Theory, which he himself created, and worked for many decades trying to prove that "God does not play dice with the Universe". While he did not arrive at a deeper understanding of Physics that would support his claim, many are still trying to make sense of how we came about, what the Nature of the Universe is, and why his assertion was right.
Science is a trial and error system, it posits a theory and seeks to prove it wrong. As long as it is not proven wrong it is a working hypothesis which we use in every day life. Science never deals with "absolute truth" that is left to theologians, ethicists and Rabbis and Priests.
Being one of them, I know how fallible we are when trying to understand God.
Evidence

Evidence is cumulative. When a new data point is found, scientists do not dump everything and start over.
When scientists realized that Pluto was just another kuiper belt object, they did not discard the heliocentric theory of the solar system and go back to Apollo and his chariot.
The fact that science is able to absorb new data and information is not justification for disregarding existing evidence.
You are right, of course. We all use Newtonian physics. Even though it's wrong. It's good enough if you are not in a deep gravity well and going at snail pace compared to the speed of light. But it is not right. Absolutes don't exist in science, and our guesses are sometimes off.
Those advocating for climate change are right. It's changing. But they may have the sources and the magnitude off. After all their models clearly don't work very well according to our evidence. We are still heating up at a fairly standard rate, and we have not had a lot of the armagedon predictions thrown out. See NOAhttp://www.noaa.gov/ which is definitely for the political global warming position, but being scientific, has good facts as well.
"Science denial and glorification of ignorance is a threat to our existence. Evidence matters."
Very well stated. Thank you.
The climate of the earth has changed many times over the history of the earth. However, the speed of climate change since the industrial revolution and especially in the last few decades is way out outside the norm. Humans are feeding climate change, and if we don't take action we will bring on unprecedented levels of human suffering.

Models tend not to be trustworthy, they usually posit two to three times the actual increase in temperature over a given period. 95% of them predict more warming than is actually recorded. The earth has recorded a rise of 0.8 - 1.0 C in the last 150 years, the 1st 100 years of warming occurred before Co2 levels rose substantially. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate acknowledged that warming was intermittent, not steady in contrast to the rise in Co2. Applying proper statistical tools to control for normal fluctuations of the earth's climate system, when compared with global temperature data, the entire temperature change from 1958-2012 occurred in a single step (1977), not driven by climate change, it was the result of the reversal of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from Negative (cool) to Positive (warm). Other than in 1998, driven by an unusually strong El' Nino, there was no statistically significant trend in average global temperatures from 1997- (to late) 2015, even though Co2 concentrations continued to increase. A global increase of 1.0 C is relatively innocuous as temperature fluctuations in most areas on a daily basis is ten to thirty times that amount. As veteran MIT climatologist Dr. Richard Lindzen puts it, "So what?" This data is provide from an article posted by E. Calvin Beisner, Ph. D., who, while not a climate scientist, knows where to get sound statistical date from those who are.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Global Warming/Climate Change interaction

Climate change is real.
Just like tobacco companies spent decades buying scientists and politicians to muddy and confuse the evidence on smoking, oil companies have bought scientists and politicians to muddy and confuse the evidence on climate change.
They are helped by legions of Christians systematically taught to distrust facts and condemn evidence as elitist. An analogy - the evidence is solid that the age of the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. Scientists can explain the myriad types of evidence that support this conclusion and discuss the changes the earth went through in each era. Likewise, the continental US is approximately 3000 miles across, but of course this number varies depending on exactly where one measures. Let's say someone said "See. See. The number for the width of the US changes. I'm going to ignore evidence for the width of the US and go with my number." To be as wrong as 6k years versus 4.6 billion years, this person would have to believe the US is 19 feet from coast to coast. Consider the massive and overwhelming evidence they would glibly ignore to believe that the width of the continental US is less than 20% of the length of a football field.
Science denial and glorification of ignorance is a threat to our existence. Evidence matters. The evidence for human influenced climate change exists and is conclusive.
The author is right. There are a dozen good reasons to care for our planet. Pick any reason you like. But pick at least one because this planet is the only one we have.
There is no need for conspiratorial theories here. Climate change is real, its been going on for a few billion years. The argument is whether hydrocarbons have had an impact. Models exist in both directions, and differ in their conclusions. Science is trial and error. We once believed the Sun circled the earth, it was "established" science, and the establishment (Church) killed people who disagreed with this "truth". Science is also not up for a vote. Newtonian physics was and is used by the vast majority of Engineers and scientists, but its wrong, as Einstenian physics have shown.
Have patience, tend God's garden, and fill the earth.
Virtually every climate scientist agrees that the global warming we are experiencing for the last 100 years or so is at least in part due to human activity, and in large part due to the massive increases in the burning of hydrocarbons.
Your arguments are specious. 4th and 3rd C. BCE Greek scientists proposed a heliocentric theory. It was always religious superstition that held back this knowledge. And Einsteinian Physics does not refute Newtonian Physics. It improves on it and applies to particle behavior that Newton was not describing.
Virtually every scientist in the 4th & 3rd century were wrong, but not because of superstition, because of lack of complete knowledge. In Akkad, 1500 years earlier, a kind of copernican view was held. Our Pythagorean equations come from the Fourth Century. No need to disparage those scientist.
Newton believed the speed of light to be infinite, and based his f=ma physics on that fact. He was wrong, and investigations of anomalies in Mercury lead to Einstein's equations. No need to disparage him either.
There haven't been level 3 Hurricane touching the US for 11 years, even though global warming suggested increases. The number of global hurricanes (monsoons, etc.) has also decreased. New facts change old theories.
I don't believe in the planned mitigation of Global warming, since we are probably at the beginning of a cooling trend (thought so by "most scientists" only 30 years ago). We certainly need to take good care of the Earth, and mitigate carbon and other chemical and human introduced imbalances. But we do not need to hand over our Economy, or our governance to international bodies that do not represent us, and we are not facing an immediate and present danger.


Sunday, October 23, 2016

Why I am for Trump

Why am I for Trump:
1.      He has the positions I agree with on:
a.        Illegal immigrants (and being a legal Immigrant and citizen, I am angry at those jumping the line),
b.      Sanctuary cities. We are a country of laws, and all laws must be respected not just those we like.
c.       The Wall. We need to defend from uncontrolled migration of both people and drugs.
d.      Justices. We need justices that will support the Constitution, not the will of a party.
e.       Obama care. 20M more people are on the backs of 60M people who have had their medical care degraded. It’s not equitable, and accelerates medical cost creep. It promotes corruption.
f.       Foreign affairs has been deplorable, While I am not sure what Trump will do, I know it is going to be forceful, to the point and effective. Much preferable to Obama/Clinton approach.
2.      Clinton is unacceptable because:
a.       She is a crook and has helped corrupt the State Department, the Justice Department, the FBI, and supported the corruptions of the White House.
b.      She speaks with a forked tongue, and her actions do not follow from her “Public” words.
c.       She has broken state secrecy laws so blatantly, and placed American personnel in danger so often she needs to be in jail and not the White House.
3.      I like Trump because he is loud and transparent. You know when he hurts and when he is pleased. You can see what he wants to do, and even can understand how he wants to achieve it.
VOTE TRUMP