About Me

My photo
SEEKONK, MASSACHUSETTS, United States

Monday, January 30, 2023

MY EVALUATION. PART 4: FINAL REPORT Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.


On election day, Vice President Pence’s staff, including his Chief of Staff and Counsel, became concerned that President Trump might falsely claim victory that evening. The Vice President’s Counsel, Greg Jacob, testified about their concern that the Vice President might be asked improperly to echo such a false statement.45 Jacob drafted a memorandum with this specific recommendation: “[I]t is essential that the Vice President not be perceived by the public as having decided questions concerning disputed electoral votes prior to the full development of all relevant facts.”

MY ANALYSIS; From this passage, we see that Vice -President Pences' staff was afraid that he would be asked to claim Election Fraud long before such a conclusion could be reasonably made. His Counsel Greg Jacob advised that such a claim would be improper, making a false statement without facts.

Millions of Americans believed that President Trump was telling the truth on election night—that President Trump actually had proof the election was stolen and that the ongoing counting of votes was an act of fraud. As votes were being counted in the days after the election, President Trump’s senior campaign advisors informed him that his chances of success were almost zero.

Former Trump Campaign Manager Bill Stepien testified that he had come to this conclusion by November 7th, and told President Trump: Committee Staff: What was your view on the state of the election at that point? Stepien: You know, very, very, very bleak...

Trump Campaign Senior Advisor Jason Miller testified to the Committee about this exchange: Miller: I was in the Oval Office. And at some point in the conversation Matt Oczkowski, who was the lead data person, was brought on, and I remember he delivered to the President in pretty blunt terms that he was going to lose. Committee Staff: And that was based, Mr. Miller, on Matt and the data team’s assessment of this sort of county-by-county, State-byState results as reported? Miller: Correct.

In one of the Select Committee’s hearings, former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt was asked what the chance President Trump had of winning the election after November 7th, when the votes were tallied and every news organization had called the race for now-President Biden. His response: “None.”

MY ANALYSIS; From this section we see that Donald Trumps claims of election fraud, made on election night and repeated time and time again, were made without any consideration of the opinion of members of his own campaign staff, or the News Media in general. He was told he was going to lose, and there was little or nothing to substantiate any avenue for victory. The Main Point is that his own staff could not bring themselves to perpetuate the fantasy world of a Trump victory.

In the weeks that followed the election, President Trump’s campaign experts and his senior Justice Department officials were informing him...no genuine evidence of fraud sufficient to change the results of the election...former Attorney General Barr testified:  

And I repeatedly told the President in no uncertain terms that I did not see evidence of fraud, you know, that would have affected the outcome of the election. And, frankly, a year and a half later, I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that. 

MY ANALYSIS; From the above information, we see that all the Legal Advice he was getting, from the Justice Dept and his Leading Campaign Staffers, was that there was no evidence of the election returns being fraudulent enough to overturn the 2020 Election results. This was emphasized by the testimony of his own Attorney General William Barr, who even up to the time of the hearing had seen nothing that would alter his opinion. 





Friday, January 27, 2023

BLAST FROM THE PAST, PUBLISHED ON QUORA.COM: ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE. PARTS 1-3.


ETHICS AND MORALITY. HEALTH CARE. PARTS 1-3.

I am not going to begin this regular feature by providing a definition that will no doubt bore most readers. In the future, I will define such words, but I would rather open up with a practical article.

The theme, " When does personal belief conflict with the best interests of society as a whole."

The Subject- Health Care.

Providing Health Insurance to every person residing in the U.S. and its' territories, is not an economic question. If the federal government creates a program to provide minimal guaranteed medical coverage, funding must be there to support those who cannot afford traditional private plans.

This is the Heart of the matter, and the dilemmas we must face are;

  • Do we, as a society, have an obligation to provide minimal affordable medical care to all.
  • That many people will, through taxation, provide a service that will be of direct benefit to others and not them personally.
  • That in the question of the right or wrong of a given situation, choosing a moral stand is;

1) The responsibility of the individual who is a member of society.

2) The obligation of the governing body in society, which is a collection

of individuals.

To illustrate what I mean, here is an example. Let us say an individual decides all questions of morality will be answered from a Doctrine based upon the teachings of a given faith. Now such decisions have two distinct implications;

  • Is the individual going to decide the morality of any given situation solely by religious instruction and nothing else. If not, they have invalidated their own moral code, for it is not universally applied. It contradicts any assertion that the doctrine of their faith, regarding morality, is to be accepted absolutely.
  • Does the individual wish to establish this system of morality for all of society, and punish any deviations?

If society is populated by a majority of such citizens, what will be the outcome?

See pt.2 in a future issue.

ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 2.

I would like to emphasize something I alluded to in part 1. Too often, the health care debate gets mired in details that have little to do with the reality that must be faced. Initially, at least, HEALTH CARE BEING APPLIED UNIVERSALLY TO AN ENTIRE POPULATION OF ANY GIVEN COUNTRY IS A MORAL DECISION, NOT AN ECONOMIC ONE.

Like other state run social programs in the U.S, Universal Health Care is not designed to turn a profit. Its' goal is to provide affordable medical insurance that will not cripple an individual or families ability to provide for other basic necessities. This idea stems from the primarily 20th century concept that government has an obligation to provide for, to a certain extent, the basic needs of a portion of the population that cannot do so on its' own. However, unlike current social programs, Universal Health Care in the U.S differs from other social programs in one major aspect- ELIGIBILITY.

As it stands today in the U.S, there are three main groups that have medical insurance.

  • Those who have high enough incomes that make attaining quality health care plans a non-issue.
  • Private health care plans that are partially or wholly subsidized by an employer.
  • Individuals and families with an income that falls below a certain level, which is set by the federal government.

These above groups leave out a substantial portion of the population in the U.S.

This segment of society is the real reason that Universal Health Care, or "Obamacare" is being instituted. The middle class is the target group that will benefit the most, because they do not lie at either end of the financial spectrum in terms of income. Since paying health insurance premiums will be done on a sliding scale basis, all Americans will be covered in a way that does not end in financial hardship.

See pt. 3 in a future issue.

ETHICS AND MORALITY- HEALTH CARE. PT 3.

In the end, subsidized health care is not an economic issue. When we say that government has an obligation to provide all citizens with affordable medical insurance, a moral decision has been made. That does not mean that in the future such a decision will not lead to practical benefits, where the return is not in just doing what is right. I will get into that part of the equation in a future post, but for now I will stay on topic.

In the debate over Universal Health Care in the U.S, much of the rhetoric ignores the bottom line. Opponents are using objections that they wish us to believe are valid and on target, but they are nothing more than a smokescreen. They choose to criticize how the program is to be funded and administered, all the while avoiding answering the most important question; IS PROVIDING AFFORDABLE SUBSIDIZED MEDICAL INSURANCE TO AMERICANS UNABLE TO ACQUIRE IT, THROUGH PRIVATE SOURCES, A MORAL OBLIGATION THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TO ALL OF ITS' CITIZENS?

The above question is often not satisfactorily answered by the critics of subsidized health care, who choose to attack the mechanics of the new law. However, the criticisms are often based on misleading, false or incomplete data. This strategy is a deliberate attempt to shift the debate away from the purpose of the program and focus it on issues that are easy to manipulate. Many times this is done by using assumptions and conclusions that are not based in reality.

( Look for part 4 in a future post.).

Wednesday, January 25, 2023

RUSSIAGATE PART 8: THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION- SOMETHING IS VERY WRONG. PARTS 5-8.

 THESE ARTICLES EXPOSE AND DESTROY TRUMPIAN/GOP ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUDULENT ELECTIONS THAT BENEFITTED DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES. THERE WERE RIGGED ELECTION RESULTS, BUT THEY GAVE US A TRUMP WHITE HOUSE, AND A SURGE OF FASCIST GOP MEMBERS IN THE SENATE.



PART 5.


There are many things that THE DISCIPLINES OF LOGIC AND CRITICAL THINKING CAN DO, THAT BENEFIT US AS INDIVIDUALS, AND SOCIETY AS A WHOLE. Unfortunately, it means, that sometimes, we have to see things as they really are, not as we want them to be.

With that in mind, "PRESIDENT ELECT" DONALD TRUMPS CONTINUING ABILITY TO PROVE THAT HE CARES VERY LITTLE ABOUT THE COUNTRY AS A WHOLE, MAY FINALLY BE LIFTING THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE FROM SOME OF THOSE WHO HAVE SUPPORTED HIM. HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND MY READERS OF AN OBSERVATION I MADE A NUMBER OF MONTHS AGO:

"No, Hard Core Trump Supporters go far beyond the Republican Party "Revolution." To them, Hate, Prejudice, Xenophobia, Racism,and Religious Zealotry are not Abstract Concepts to be studied, but Tangible and Useful Tactics to Influence Fanatics of every Stripe, and scare more Rational Potential Voters."

"What is Rule #1- What Donald Trump has Done or Said, or will Do or Say, MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AS LONG AS HE TOES THE EXTREMIST LINE."


FROM THE FEATURE ARTICLE:  "MESSAGE TO ALL PROGRESSIVES: DON'T YOU SEE IT, EVEN NOW? PART 2."



Now we have the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TELLING CONGRESS, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, THAT THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT RUSSIA HAS HACKED INTO THIS COUNTRIES COMPUTER SYSTEM, AND LEAKED INFORMATION THAT BENEFITED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DURING THE LAST ELECTION.

Yes, DONALD TRUMP IGNORES THIS POSSIBILITY, AND RIDICULES THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY FOR EVEN CONSIDERING IT.  However, This Obvious "CONFLICT OF INTEREST," make his Assertions of Dubious Quality, together with the fact that he offers no reasonable answers to refute the evidence being offered to Congress.

HOWEVER, IT COULD GET MUCH WORSE, AND HERE'S WHY:

WHAT IF THE ELECTION RESULTS WERE TAMPERED WITH?

Consider the following;

AS TRUMP SUPPORTERS ASSERT, HE DID GET MORE THAN +2,000,000 VOTES THAN
ROMNEY DID IN 2012.

YES HE DID, BUT WHERE WAS THAT INCREASE FROM? AS I HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT IN AN EARLIER POST, THERE WERE ALMOST 8 MILLION MORE VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT IN 2016 THAN THERE WERE IN 2012.  That is hardly a ringing endorsement, and is one of the reasons his % of the vote was smaller than ROMNEYS.

HERE IS A FIGURE YOU CAN CONTEMPLATE AS A LEAD IN TO PART 6:


THE REPUBLICAN TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES FROM 2012-2016 INCREASED. +2,046,375

MORE THAN HALF OF THAT INCREASE CAME FROM ONLY 4 STATES.


CARE TO GUESS WHICH ONES?

MICHIGAN. +164,287.

PENNSYLVANIA.  +290,299.

OHIO.  +179,568.

FLORIDA.  +454,439.

TOTAL: 1,088,593.

STAY TUNED...





PART 6.

Presidential Election, Usa, Politics 
(BELOW REPRINTED FROM PART 5.)

THE REPUBLICAN TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES FROM 2012-2016 INCREASED +2,046,375.

MORE THAN HALF OF THAT INCREASE CAME FROM ONLY 4 STATES.

CARE TO GUESS WHICH ONES?

MICHIGAN. +164,287.

PENNSYLVANIA.  +290,299.

OHIO.  +179,568.

FLORIDA.  +454,439.

TOTAL: 1,088,593.
***************************************************************************************************************

To help put this in proper perspective, consider the following:

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY INCREASED THEIR NATIONAL VOTE COUNT BY +2,046,375. 
(2012- 2016).

THE ABOVE 4 STATES ACCOUNT FOR +1,088,593 OF THIS INCREASE.(53.2%)

THAT MEANS THAT THE REMAINING 46 STATES WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR 
THE OTHER 957,782 VOTES. (46.8%).

MICHIGAN, PENNSYLVANIA, OHIO, FLORIDA had a combined increase in REPUBLICAN
VOTES SO LARGE, THAT IT SURPASSED ALL OTHER STATES ADDED TOGETHER.

However, sometimes huge gains in NUMBERS OF VOTES WASN'T ENOUGH TO CLINCH A VICTORY. THAT, AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOMEONE MIGHT REALIZE THAT RUSSIAS HACKING, AND RELEASE OF DATA DETRIMENTAL TO HILLARY CLINTON, COULD NEVER BE QUANTIFIED INTO HOW MANY VOTES WOULD BE EITHER GAINED OR LOST. THIS MAY HAVE LED TO POSSIBLE VARIATIONS IN HOW THE FINAL VOTE COUNT COULD BE MANIPULATED.

(Which leads to the following: WHY IS THERE AN ASSUMPTION THAT RUSSIA, AND ONLY RUSSIA, COULD BE GUILTY OF TAMPERING WITH THE ELECTION RESULTS. THE RUSSIANS HACKING INTO COMPUTER FILES TO GATHER INFORMATION TO BE USED AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON IS A SEPARATE ISSUE FROM INTENTIONALLY ALTERING BALLOT COUNTS).

FOR THIS EXAMPLE, LET US BRING ANOTHER ONE OF THE 6 STATES THAT CHANGED SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRAT TO REPUBLICAN FOR THE 2016 ELECTION.

WISCONSIN.

In 2016 Wisconsin the REPUBLICAN PARTY WON THE STATE BY A VOTE OF:
1,405,284- 1,382,586. Another narrow victory.

Oddly enough, they did this while accumulating LESS VOTES THAN IT HAD IN 2012.
THE REDUCTION WAS ONLY -2682, BUT IT WAS A REDUCTION. I GUESS
WISCONSIN REPUBLICANS SAW NO GREAT NEED TO TURN OUT THE VOTE.

Well, they were right. THE DEMOCRATS, WHO HAD BEATEN THE REPUBLICANS
BY ABOUT 7% OF THE VOTE IN 2012, LOST NEARLY A QUARTER OF A MILLION
VOTES IN 2016. (-238,449.).

INTERESTING.








PART 7.

IT IS THIS BAD...

Before I continue with an Analysis of the 2016 Presidential Election, I would like to point out a couple of things:

-  All the Statistics and Numbers I use in this SERIES OF POSTS ARE AVAILABLE AND EASY TO FIND ON THE INTERNET. NUMEROUS SITES CARRY THE "OFFICIAL" ELECTION RETURNS FOR EACH STATE, AND THE U.S AS A WHOLE. IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE FIGURES, AT LEAST HAVE THE INTELLECTUAL HONESTY TO BACK IT WITH FACTUAL DATA. IT CAN BE AS EASY AS GOING ON WIKIPEDIA, AND ENTERING "2016" OR "2012" ELECTION. However, if you don't want to use WIKIPEDIA, I'm sure your News Outlet of Choice will contain all the information you need.

-  The RUSSIAN CONNECTION TO THIS ELECTION, WHILE DISTURBING, IS NOT THE REAL STORY.  AS I SAID IN THE LAST POST,YOU CANNOT "QUANTIFY" THE AMOUNT OR NUMBER OF VOTES THAT WERE GAINED OR LOST BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT LEAKING INFORMATION DETRIMENTAL TO HILLARY CLINTON.

EVEN IF THIS INTERFERENCE WENT AS FAR AS HACKING INTO SYSTEMS TO ALTER
VOTER RETURNS, IT LEAVES ONE MORE IMPORTANT FACTOR TO CONSIDER:

IT WAS NOT RUSSIAN POLITICIANS WHO CERTIFIED, AND SIGNED OFF ON THE "OFFICIAL NUMBERS." IT WAS AMERICAN ELECTION OFFICIALS WHO DID THAT. AS IMPROBABLE AS THESE TOTALS SEEM TO BE IN SOME CASES, NO ONE CONTESTED THEM.  

THAT IS THE REAL STORY.

I'll leave you with another example:


PENNSYLVANIA- 2012 ELECTION. TOTAL # OF DEMOCRAT\REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,670,708.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,990,274.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES- 2,680,434.

MARGIN OF DEMOCRATIC VICTORY- 309,840 VOTES.

PENNSYLVANIA- 2016 ELECTION.  TOTAL # OF DEMOCRATIC/REPUBLICAN VOTES: 5,897,174.  UP +226,466 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL DEMOCRATIC VOTES- 2,926,441 VOTES, LOSS OF 63,833 VOTES FROM 2012 ELECTION.

TOTAL REPUBLICAN VOTES-  2,970,733 VOTES, GAIN OF +290,299 VOTES.


HERE IS A BREAKDOWN:

The TOTAL # OF  DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN VOTES INCREASED +226,466 votes from
2012-2016.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY LOST 63,833 VOTES BETWEEN 2012 AND 2016, OR ABOUT -2.1%. In itself, that's 
not a drastic decline. It would be considered a result that is well within normal expectations.

HOWEVER, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NUMBERS ARE ANOTHER MATTER. AN INCREASE OF +290,299 VOTES REPRESENTS ABOUT AN + 10.8% INCREASE. 
This number, (+290,299), is more than 4 times the number 
of votes that the Democrats lost.

TO ACHIEVE THE TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY NEEDED A SCENARIO LIKE THE FOLLOWING TO HAPPEN:

EVERY SINGLE VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE IN 2012, HAD TO DO SO AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434 VOTES.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO CAST A BALLOT FOR EITHER THE DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, HAD TO CHOOSE REPUBLICAN: +226,466 VOTES.

THAT TOTAL= 2,906,900 IS STILL SHORT OF THE "OFFICIAL" TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES.

HOW COULD THIS BE? THE REPUBLICANS WERE STILL 63,833 VOTES SHORT OF THE FINAL NUMBER. WELL, GO BACK A FEW PARAGRAPHS AND CHECK OUT THE NUMBER OF VOTES THE DEMOCRATS LOST FROM 2012-2016= -63,833.

TO ACHIEVE A TOTAL OF 2,970,733 VOTES IN 2016, HERE IS RUNDOWN OF WHAT THE REPUBLICANS NEEDED TO HAPPEN:

EVERY REPUBLICAN VOTER FROM 2012, RETURNS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN AGAIN IN 2016: 2,680,434.

EVERY NEW VOTER WHO SELECTS EITHER DEM.\REP. IN 2016, CHOOSES REP.: 226,466.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE 63,833 VOTERS THE DEM. PARTY LOST BETWEEN 2012- 2016, RETURNS TO THE POLLS AND VOTES REPUBLICAN.

2,680,434 + 226,466 + 63,833 = 2,970,733.

THIS IS LUDICROUS. NO REASONABLE INDIVIDUAL WHO
LOOKS AT THESE NUMBERS COULD TAKE THEM SERIOUSLY. 

TO ALL DEMOCRATS, PROGRESSIVES, AND FRIENDS AND ALLIES OF THE U.S. ACROSS THE GLOBE: THIS ELECTION WAS A SHAM. 

DON'T BELIEVE ME? PLEASE CHECK THE RESULTS YOURSELF. DON'T TAKE MY WORD, GO OVER THEM CAREFULLY. 

ANY DEMOCRATIC LEADER WHO SAW THESE RESULTS, AND DIDN'T QUESTION THEM, IS AS GUILTY AS ANY REPUBLICAN WHO MAY HAVE SET THIS SCAM INTO MOTION. 

ANY DEMOCRATIC LEADER...

I HAVE BROKEN DOWN ONLY 2 STATES, WISCONSIN, AND PENNSYLVANIA. STAY TUNED....




PART 8.

REPUBLICAN PARTY VOTING RESULTS FOR 2012 AND 2016.

HERE IS THE % BREAKDOWN FOR THE                                     
24 STATES THAT VOTED REPUBLICAN                                        
IN 2012 AND 2016.                                                                              

IF THE CANDIDATE LISTED IS ROMNEY,                                     
THE HIGHER FIGURE IS FROM 2012.                                             

IF IT IS TRUMP, THE HIGHER FIGURE IS                                      
FROM 2016.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                                         
ALABAMA- TRUMP: 62.08%.- 60.55%                             
ALASKA-  ROMNEY: 54.80%- 51.28%
ARIZONA- ROMNEY: 53.65%- 48.67%
ARKANSAS- TIE- 60.57%
GEORGIA- ROMNEY: 53.30%- 50.77%
IDAHO- ROMNEY: 64.53%- 59.26%
INDIANA- TRUMP: 56.82%- 54.13%
KANSAS- ROMNEY: 59.71%- 56.65%
KENTUCKY- TRUMP: 62.5%- 60.49%
LOUISIANA- TRUMP: 58.09%- 57.78%
MISSISSIPPI- TRUMP: 57.94%- 55.28%
MISSOURI- TRUMP: 56.77%- 53.76%
MONTANA- TRUMP: 56.17%- 55.35%
NEBRASKA- ROMNEY: 59.80%- 58.75%
NORTH CAROLINA- ROMNEY: 50.39%- 49.83%
NORTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 62.96%- 58.32%
OKLAHOMA- ROMNEY: 66.77%- 65.32%
SOUTH CAROLINA- TRUMP: 54.94%- 54.56%
SOUTH DAKOTA- TRUMP: 61.53%- 57.89%
TENNESSEE- TRUMP: 60.72%- 59.48%
TEXAS- ROMNEY: 57.17%- 52.23%
UTAH- ROMNEY: 72.79%- 45.54%
WEST VIRGINIA- TRUMP: 68.63%- 62.30%
WYOMING- ROMNEY: 68.64%- 67.40%

UTAHS LARGE MARGIN BETWEEN
2012- 72.79%, 2016- 45.54% COULD HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY THE 21.54% EARNED BY EVAN MCMULLEN (IND.)
IN 2016.


THE BIGGEST INCREASE FROM 2012- 2016.
WEST VIRGINIA- +6.33%.

THE BIGGEST DECREASE- IDAHO -5.27%


NOW, HERE ARE THE 6 STATES THAT VOTED DEMOCRAT IN 2012, BUT REPUBLICAN
IN 2016.

KEEP IN MIND, THESE TOTALS REVEAL NOTHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTIES RESULTS FOR THE TWO ELECTIONS.


CHANGES IN REPUBLICAN SUPPORT FROM 2012-2016.

                       2012 RESULTS.            2016 RESULTS.                    NUMBER/ %

FLORIDA.       4,163,447                       4,617,886                           +454,439/ +10.9%

IOWA.              730,617                          800,983                              +70,366/ +9.6%

MICHIGAN.    2,115,256                        2,279,543                           +164,287/ +7.8%
OHIO.             2,661,437                         2,841,005                           +179,568/ +6.7%

PENN.             2,680,434.                        2,970,733                          +290,299/+10.8%

WISCONSIN.  1,407,966                         1,405,284                          -2682/-.02%


AS YOU CAN SEE, 5 OF THE STATES HAD % INCREASES LARGER THAN ANY OF THE
24 STATES WHO VOTED REPUBLICAN IN BOTH ELECTIONS. REMEMBER, THESE WERE
STATES THAT WENT DEMOCRAT 4 YEARS EARLIER.

KEEP IN MIND THAT MICHIGAN AND PENNSYLVANIA HAD VOTED DEMOCRAT SINCE 1992.

WHAT ABOUT WISCONSIN? STAY TUNED...