Tag Archives: PEW Research

Facting a check

I find myself in this setting. A few days ago, I remember that President Trump said that the Iranian missiles were taken care of and in light of the 2000 drones and missiles fired at the UAE it sounded plausible. So the Deutsche Welle gave us “Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu say that Iran’s missile capacity is “destroyed” and “degraded,” yet Iran still strikes. How many missiles and drones remain, and how quickly can Iran rebuild its arsenal?” Which came with ‘How well armed is Iran, and can it replenish missiles?’ I was ahead of that by designing a new IP to take care of the roads, I started with crazy glue, but I changed this to small pellets with a 10 seconds delay. Based on the original setting it was a small pellet about 5mm in size with crazy glue around the core in the outer shell and whilst trucks drove over them the 10 seconds delay would enable the solution to be ‘grabbed’ by several trucks and in the Iranian ‘wilderness’ a truck without tires gets stopped right quick and no help is expected to come for hours. So whilst these trucks are out in the open and no help is coming, you get missiles without a clue, trucks without tracks and you can fill in the rest. So I was feeling pretty happy that my 2.0 solution seemed to be on a roll so to say.

But now, only an hour ago we are given by Reuters ‘Exclusive: U.S. can only confirm about a third of Iran’s missile arsenal destroyed, sources say’ (article behind paywall) this means that Iran can keep on firing its missiles into the UAE and Saudi Arabia. As such I am happy that I gave them the IP to take care of their harbours and railways, and now of course my 2.0 solution to trucking. So, this gives us the light wondering if President Trump has the ability to speak the truth, because we get exaggeration after exaggeration and there is no stopping this man as he is might be seen as the first president that has a failed fact check list that humbles a New York Phonebook for its amount of pages.

And whilst the Wall Street Journal gives us ‘Trump Tells Aides He Wants Speedy End to Iran War’ where we are given “President Trump has told associates in recent days that he wants to avoid a protracted war in Iran and that he hopes to bring the conflict to an end in the coming weeks.” So, what is his idea of a speedy end? The United States is now in week 4 of the Iranian clambake, it is ‘halting’ 10 days with CNN giving us “US President Donald Trump has for a second time extended his deadline for Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz – or face its power plants being “obliterated.” The status of the talks remains unclear, with both sides giving mixed signals. Iran has expressed deep distrust toward Washington, while Trump is growing frustrated with the pace of progress. And on the ground, the war, which has killed thousands across the Middle East since it began nearly four weeks ago, shows no signs of diminishing.” All whilst CNBC gives us “The U.S. is preparing to send thousands more troops to the Middle East, prompting speculation about a ground attack on Iran amid conflicting accounts of peace talks. The Pentagon is reportedly preparing to send about 3,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, alongside two Marine Expeditionary Units, to assist military operations in Iran.” All whist BBC News gives us that “Pentagon denies report that US considering sending 10,000 troops to Middle East” Now, I get that armies ‘wallow’ in misinformation, so that is fair as they do not want their enemy to know which way is up. As such I am all for that level of misinformation and it is according to the writings of Sun Tzu (the art of war), but there is a massive missing level of fact checks on a few levels and I reckon we should know what was not destroyed, especially when the enemy knows what was not destroyed. But I could be grasping at straws here. 

The larger setting is that there is too much out of bounds and that also goes into the failing credibility of the US administration, and as I see it, they cannot deal with too much loss there. Especially as they are losing more allies they ever had and at present it only has Israel as an ally left. At present the ‘calculus’ setting as the United States as an ally is giving Israel as 71%, and in that list, the lowest is Japan at 63%, after that it goes down fast, at the top is Canada claiming the United States as an ally with 46%, Australia at 38% and more below, with the United States calling the United States an ally for 1%. (Source: PEW Research), now, this is not the most recent research, but the setting of this should scare the United States government into springing into action, because before 2025 Canada was its top ally and now Canada is resentful of the United States and its tourism numbers are in the basement. Forbes gave us that “As of early 2026, Canadian travel to the U.S. has seen 13 consecutive months of declines.” And in this economy as it stands, this is really bad. 

Fair question. There is a setting that the armies can only continue when the money comes rolling in and that is not happening, the US economy is largely losing on tourism, all whilst the Financial Times gives us (at https://www.ft.com/content/15117219-c1e1-4da8-866b-817b75643c18) “The costs of Trump’s war are staggering. The most consequential is the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which has caused global oil prices to rise at the fastest rate since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The average gasoline price in the US is now $3.98 — nearly $1 higher than just a month ago. For the average household, the pain at the pump could add up to nearly $750 in extra costs this year.” Take that number, add to that the amount of people that are hurt though tourism, manufacturing and services and take into consideration the number offers that JP Morgan gave us last October and the cost of warfare is rearing its ugly head. Add to that the amount of fact checks that are getting a failing grade and this mess is near complete.

So whilst the Financial Times also gives us “Higher prices on everything from groceries to furniture to clothes will tear a hole in family budgets at a time when more Americans already report skipping meals, delaying medical care, or dipping into their retirement savings to make ends meet. The response from Trump’s top economic adviser, Kevin Hassett, was that consumer pain caused by the Iran war is “the last of our concerns right now”.” I personally think that Kevin Hassett is seemingly on the wrong medication at present, consumer pain goes through everything and Sun Tzu’s The Art of War actually advises avoiding harm to civilians and promoting their goodwill. This is not happening now (as far as I can see) and this has been a truth for over 2500 years. So as I see it, Kevin Hassett better take a renewed look at what is happening at present, because he gets to eat his own words when this so called war is still in effect in 3 weeks, because at that point the breaking point of the people will have been surpassed by a lot and that (speculative) rating of United States calling the United States an ally decreases to 0% and as I see it, no nation ever faced that setting before. There is a new setting coming up (and I don’t like it) there is now a chance that the United States might face another civil war, because when the people lose whatever they have and face more and more hardship the bulk of its population (now assessed at 342,000,000) cannot be controlled by 1,300,000 troops and there is every chance that many will walk out of their units to stand by their family. This is what this administration seemingly achieved and that is the harsh view they need to face. 

So, am I wrong? 
This is also a fair question, because no one is looking at this, but I believe that this speculative view I have will gain traction in the next two weeks and I would be happy to be wrong, but the checks and balances that need to be in place aren’t there and the larger group of the media is no longer credible, so you have to figure it out. Have a great day today.

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics, Tourism

Choices

We all see them, we all have them and we often have a feeling of polarisation when we are hit by them. It all starts with a tweet by George Takei. I greatly admire the guy, not in the least as Lt. Sulu on the Enterprise. The man is intelligent, direct and has (as I personally see it) ownership of the statement ‘Oh my!’ George has an impressive history as an actor and as a humanitarian. He is also an activist and all that does not break down in any way of the person he is. I have no problem s towards him as a person or as a republican, he is the kind of person that actually makes America great and we have to accept that. I have no issues with him and I have no issues with his stance against President Trump, even as I agree with him on this matter, no matter how republican I am, we need to be held to account for what we say and what we do and I believe the fits with the republican point of view.

So when I saw the tweet, I was a little miffed. You see, in the directness of the setting Senator Gardner is actually correct. When we look at the constitution we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, it is however a little more complex. The president can choose whomever he wants, yet it must be settled through a majority in the US Senate. As such 51 senators need to confirm the appointment and that is where it gets to be complex. 

Candidates are nominated by the President of the United States and must face a series of hearings in which both the nominee and other witnesses make statements and answer questions before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which can vote to send the nomination to the full United States Senate. Confirmation by the Senate allows the President to formally appoint the candidate to the court. The Constitution does not set any qualifications for service as a Justice, thus the President may nominate any individual to serve on the Court”, yet feel free to read up (at https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Nominations.htm). 

It is the series of hearings the are the big issue in most cases, yet here to President Trump has an advantage, or does he? To see this, we need to voice the opinion of an individual. This was done with “RIP to the more than 30 million innocent babies that have been murdered during the decades that Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended pro-abortion laws”, the issue is not one I agree with, but that visibility will aid us. Some republicans and especially the pro-life people will want a different type of judge, they will have a polarising look at the entire situation, yet when we examine congress we get a grasp of PEW research (at https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/06/18/three-in-ten-or-more-democrats-and-republicans-dont-agree-with-their-party-on-abortion/).

No matter how we want to see the data, we need to see the top-line net numbers. In this only 64% of the Republicans agree with this stance. Moreover, the 7% of the democrats agreeing with the Republicans will not be enough to carry the call of a majority, the hearing will be on many issues, but as you can see depending on the hearing, there will be any number of issues that the senate will be dissenting on and the hearings will be a task on a few items and even as there is a Republican senate, it might not be enough for a few reasons. 

As a law graduate I have to believe in the process and the US has a larger process, as I see it the constitution sets a large protective fence around the nation of law setting and that is good, so as such the selection of any Supreme Court judge is a big thing, it will be a big thing for either side of the isle and it is the right for the Republicans to select one (for now) and if the US senate confirms the choice, it will be a one deal.

When we see “When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice”, why does anyone assume that the presently elected president would not try to select a Supreme? It is one of the greatest things any president gets to do. So for the Democrats it kind of sicks that the timing is off, but that does not matter, there is a vacancy, and this president gets to nominate the next one.

And before we give rise to the ones making noise on the fairness of it. Consider the this president got elected by the 55% the voted, if Demo(c)rats are so about the issue, remember, 45% could not be bothered getting out of bed to vote. That sucks doesn’t it?

So as we are confronted with the choices of people, we need to accept the we might not agree with all, but we accept the they have a right to chose. I might not agree with George Takei all the time, but his choices tend to be intelligent, as such I will take notice. So whilst we see all kinds of flames are started on Twitter and Facebook, we have to consider to reset a lot of them (99%) from the get go and learn what is involved with certain choices and nominations. Who of you knew of the hearings? Who knew that a nomination requires a majority approval? Who knew that the last one elected (also by President Trump) got there after a grilling that took 48 hours and well over 1250 questions. As such there is a stage we need to consider, if the last two were not bad choices (Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh), why is there so much opposition? We all accept that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an amazing judge and filling those shoes will be a hard task, but the rules of the game (the constitution) are clear, There is a vacancy and a nomination can be put forward, the vacancy happened in the age of President Trump and unless there is actual evidence that the previous two were wrong choices, we get to blame the US senate, I merely wonder who dug through those 1250 questions and came optionally to the conclusion of wrongful election?  

I made a choice, George Takei made a choice, Senator Gardner made a choice, the US Senate made its choice and President Trump made a choice. I am not wise enough to proclaim who was wrong, optionally none were. Could you be wrong?

This is the beauty of subjectivity, it is our right, it is the right of most people living in a free democratic world.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Law, Media, Politics