Thursday, December 29, 2016

Popular Vote versus Electoral College (Part II)

Fourthly, Clinton only won 20 states and the District of Columbia. That means Trump won 30 states! Clinton received nearly 40% of her vote from a mere seven states: California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have huge urban areas and compose about 30% of the nation’s population. Clinton defeated Trump by nearly 10 million votes in these states (4.3 million in California alone)! Compare this to Trump’s seven largest margin of victories in states: Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Missouri. Trump won these states by 4.2 million votes but they make up less than 18% of the nation’s population and accounted for about 21% of Trump’s total vote. These states may have some urban areas, but they also have big rural populations. The bottom line is conservatives will never win highly populous states by the same margin as liberals because liberals dominate urban areas. So, should seven urban states speak for the entire country? Should our country be led by pro urban policies at the expense of rural people?

The Electoral College makes smaller states and rural areas matter. If the Electoral College was eliminated, it would initially help to expand voter turnout. Especially in states where turnout is low because they lean so far Left or Right. For instance, Republicans in California and New York or Democrats in Utah and Wyoming would more likely turn out to vote since their vote may matter more. For instance, this year Democrats had great turnouts in Texas (Turnout increased 2.6%), Utah (2.3%), Arizona (3.6%), and Georgia (1%) because pollsters and the media said these states were in play (and they were wrong). This helped boost Clinton’s popular vote by nearly 500,000 votes. On the other hand, pollsters and the media can suppress votes. Trump may have gotten a small boost in Michigan (1.9%) and Pennsylvania (2.3%) since most pundits said these states were safe for Clinton. However, no one said Wisconsin (-3.5%), Minnesota (-1.3%), or Maine (3.7%, went up since Trump campaigned there because it is not a winner take all state – much higher turnout in district 2) was in play but they were much closer than Texas, Utah, Arizona, and Georgia. If the media and pundits can control the turnout in states, they can certainly more easily control turnout across the country with national polls.

The bottom line, in the long run, urban areas would win out and more than likely disenfranchise rural voters similar to how the Supreme Court ruling “One person, one vote” has disenfranchised rural voters within the individual states. Over 80% of the United States land mass is rural and hence lean Republican. In a strictly popular vote election this makes it much more difficult for Republicans to get their voters to polling places because they have so much more land area to cover. A switch to prioritize the seven most urban and liberal states to decide elections would be a mistake. No one would campaign for small battleground states such as New Hampshire, Maine, Colorado, or Nevada anymore.

Friday, December 23, 2016

Popular Vote Versus Electoral College (Part I)

The election is over and Liberals are not happy because Clinton received the most votes and lost. Now, they want to eliminate the Electoral College (Clinton won by 2.6 million votes, about 2%, but Trump won the Electoral College 306 to 232). Is this something that should be considered? No, and here are some reasons why:

First, Clinton did not win 50% of the popular vote. She won 48.1% to Trump’s 46.1%. Clinton was really about 2.5 million votes away from earning a plurality of the popular vote. Third Party candidates earned about 5.8% of the vote (the most since Ross Perot ran in 1992 and 1996). If a candidate cannot win at least 50% of the popular vote then they do not have a claim to the popular vote title since most people voted against them. What’s worse, there was a huge “under vote” (people who vote but opt not to vote for the Presidential race) nationally of about 2.5%. Generally, Presidential elections have an under vote of less than 0.5%. But since both Trump and Clinton were so unpopular, the under vote was much higher. Therefore, Clinton’s percentage of the electorate was under well 47% if the under vote was considered. The Clinton campaign was so inept, they spent millions in Chicago, New Orleans, and large California cities with the goal to run up the popular vote. The Clinton campaign was convinced they were going to win the electoral college so they spent more money trying to garner extra votes in states where the outcome was going to be a landslide. The Clinton camp made a huge error by spending no money in Wisconsin and very little in Michigan. Hence, the objective of the Clinton camp was to win the popular vote. Meanwhile, winning the popular vote was not the objective of the Trump camp, they spent their money wisely in battleground states with the objective of winning the electoral college. The bottom line, if winning the popular vote was the goal, then Trump would have implemented a much different campaign strategy.

Secondly, the 2016 election scenario has played out several times in U.S. history. In Presidential elections with a popular vote (the first nine presidential elections did not have a popular vote), the candidate with the most votes lost the election 5 times (14% of the time). In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular vote and electoral vote. However, there were four candidates and no one received a plurality of the electoral vote. Hence, the election went to the House of Representatives and they choose John Quincy Adams over Jackson. In 1876, Rutherford Hayes won the Electoral College by 1 vote and lost the election by about 250,000 votes to Samuel Tilden. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison won the Electoral College by a convincing 65 votes, but lost the popular vote by 90,000 votes to Grover Cleveland. In 2000, George Bush won the Electoral College by 5 votes but lost the election by 550,000 votes. In 1800, there was not a popular vote, but both Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr were tied in the Electoral College. Jefferson won the election after it was decided in the House of Representatives. Our democracy has survived nearly 250 years following the procedure put forth in the Constitution without any serious issues.

Thirdly, the lamest argument by liberals is that Third Party Candidates cost Clinton a plurality in the Electoral College. They claim Clinton would have won in Wisconsin (0.8%), Michigan (0.2%), and Pennsylvania (0.7%) if there were not any third party candidates. In an analysis of Third Party candidates (I did this) – it is estimated that Trump would have received about 4 million votes (52%) to Clinton’s 3.7 million votes (48%) if voters were forced to choose between Trump or Clinton. Maybe Clinton could have won Michigan (probably not) but that would not have been enough for her win the Electoral College. It is unlikely the results would have changed in any state even if Third Party candidates were not in the election. Why? Because the under vote for President was significantly high in 2016 – over 3% in some states. In Nevada, 2.5% of the people voted “None of the Above” in a state Clinton won by 2.4% (less than 0.5% voted “None of the Above” in 2012). Nearly 4% of Californians did not vote for President. Hence, it is quite conceivable that the under vote would have been significantly higher if there were no Third Party options (both candidates were highly unpopular). Besides, Republicans could have made the same claim for Minnesota (that a Third Party candidate cost them the state) where Evan McMullin received 1.8% of the vote (Clinton won Minnesota by 1.4%). McMullin was only on the ballots in 11 states but still finished 5th overall. McMullin voters were highly conservative just as most Jill Stein voters were highly liberal.

Monday, December 19, 2016

Is there a God? (Part IV)

One bizarre concept, the Multiple Universe theory, tries to explain how our observation changes what is happening in reality. Since on a subatomic level our existence is not definitive, but one based on probability then in one universe I am writing this blog, in another universe I may sleeping, and even in other universes I may not be born yet. How can something like this happen without a higher being involved? This theory almost resembles Dr. Seuss’s “Horton Hears a Who” except Horton can exist in both worlds at different points in his life. In fact, there are an infinite number of universes that Horton may exist. There are as many universes necessary to cover all possible probabilities (potential outcomes) of Schrödinger’s equation.

The Bible, in fact, gives us clues that quantum mechanics was part of God’s plan to create the universe. God said “Let there be light” as the first step in creating the universe. Quantum mechanics has taught us that light is the energy that binds and holds matter together so it makes sense that the first thing God created was light. In Hebrews 11:3 it says "By faith we understand that the entire universe was formed at God’s command, that what we now see did not come from anything that can be seen." This is so true, everything we can see is made up of things we cannot see. In Peter 3:8 it states "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." This sounds like the theory of relatively. Everything is summed up fairly well in Corinthians 4:18 when it says "So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal." These are just a few examples of many that show how the Bible supports quantum theories.

None of this is proof that a God exists, but it is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence. If this case was tried in a court of law it is becoming more and more apparent that there is enough evidence to say a God exists: The creation of the universe and Earth that followed a perfect chronological order of unlikely events to support life, precisely measured universal constants, quantum theory’s bizarre probability state, and the biblical support of these theories.

Saturday, December 17, 2016

Is there a God? (Part III)

How can atomic and subatomic physics yield such different results in reality and yet co-exist? Well, many physicists do not believe they do – that we actually live in a world ruled by subatomic physics and not what we actually believe is reality. Therefore, what we are seeing, hearing, and sensing is not actually our reality. Essentially what physicists are saying is: it possible that our brains and or our minds are tricking our subconscious into seeing and hearing what we believe is reality. This may explain why people with near death experiences continue to see and hear things even though their brain is dead, their subconscious is still alive.

Everything in our reality is based solely on our perception or point of view. I may see a yellow wall or full moon, but a color blind person living half way around the globe would see neither. So does a yellow wall or the moon exist? This is similar to the famous riddle: If a tree falls in the forest does it make a noise if no one is there to hear it? In our reality world the answer would be yes, but in the world of quantum mechanics the answer is both yes and no (there is no definitive answer). It begs to question, if we can trick our subconscious into believing that we live in a definitive world (and not one of probability), then it is that farfetched to believe a higher being may be able to manipulate the universe in a similar fashion? It is almost as if we are all puppets living in a make believe world where God is pulling all the strings: We are putting on play or show for God. Of course none of this answers the biggest riddle in my viewpoint: Why do bad things happen to good people? If God is controlling all of us, then why does he put good people through so much hurt and pain? The Bible explains why Jesus went through unbelievable torture and death, but it does not explain why others must also endure pain and suffering.

In previous posts, I have theorized that our society is balanced and stabilized based on the Gaussian probability density curve (Bell Curve). For instance, there are a large number of good people in the center of the Bell Curve and a smaller number of evil and saint like beings at each end of the Bell Curve respectively. For every good act there is a bad act that balances it. For society to exist it must be stabilized by both good and evil (ying and yang) and healthy and unhealthy. This type of probability based society fits under the realm of the subatomic laws. The Bible pits good (God) versus evil (Devil) and talks about plagues and diseases purposely brought onto groups of people. So this theory follows both biblical and subatomic theories. All possible outcomes in a subatomic universe can neither be all good or all evil. God’s plan calls for adversity and challenges in life so people can learn and evolve (analogous to how all living organisms physically grow and get stronger). It is my belief this is true because the goal of life is grow and become a better person. If people were all good and nothing bad happened to them - life would not evolve and in fact be very boring. If bad things only happened to bad people then no one would care and life would also fail to evolve under this scenario. Of course, all living things must die – so birth and death of living things are what we have in common. But if Schrödinger’s equation is right, our subconscious will live before birth and after death. This may explain those weird Deja vu experiences we encounter and for some, those near death experiences. Maybe before birth and after death experiences is where good and evil are separated. For example, the Bible preaches evil goes to hell and good goes to heaven.

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Is there a God? (Part II)

It is also interesting to look at six universal constants: the strength of electromagnetism to the strength of gravity, the fusion of hydrogen to helium to determine the strong nuclear force, the density parameter, the cosmological constant, the gravitational energy constant, and the number of spatial dimensions. If for some reason any one of these number constant values changed in the slightest, not only would life cease to exist, the universe would not exist. What are the odds of this happening? I do not know, but it is very small, and once again, likely pointing to the existence of a higher being creating the perfect environment for life to exist. Still, others may see this as just another unlikely coincidence.

Today, with all of our modern equipment we still cannot explain hundreds of mysteries from past civilizations: Stonehenge, Machu Picchu, the Rama Empire, the Longyou Caves, the city Nan Madol, the city Tinwanaku, Baalbek (Roman Empire), the Egyptian Empire, and Gobleki Tepe to name a few of hundreds. These civilizations were advanced for their time yet we have no clue how they built their amazing structures with such precision. How did they move and carve out those massive sized rocks? Where did they learn the techniques for such advanced building expertise? How did they learn how to plan out and design cities ahead of time? We do not know, because tools and documentation to explain these answers are missing. In fact, many of the people who populated these civilizations disappeared without a trace. All signs point to some outside assistance. Some claim the help came in the form of aliens. If that is true, then God placed the aliens here. Either way, aliens or not, all signs point to a higher level being (God) helping these people. All this being said, none of the above information is actual proof to support the existence of a God. However, modern quantum physics or quantum mechanics may support scientific evidence of the existence of God. Quantum physics is the study of subatomic particles that make up the protons, neutrons, and electrons of an atom. What makes quantum physics so difficult to grasp is that the laws of physics as we know them in our reality, do not apply at the subatomic level. We see things as definitive in our reality of life, but in quantum mechanics everything is based on probability. We see time and space in our reality as linear and constant, but in quantum mechanics time and space are relative (theory of relativity). In our reality, matter can exist in multiple states – solid, gas, liquid. However, these elements or molecules states are definitive – they only exist in one state at a time. For instance, water cannot be in both liquid and solid forms at the same time. In quantum mechanics particles can act as waves and vice versa and it is impossible to distinguish between the two. The discovery that light acted in this duality mode (a wave and particle) shed light on this phenomenon. It is believed that particles or waves at the subatomic level can also violate the traditional laws of physics. For example sub atomic particles or waves may travel faster than the speed of light.

Let’s examine the difference between definitive and probability states. If, for example, the weather for tomorrow calls for a 50% chance of rain – we will definitively determine that to be either 0% or 100% after tomorrow ends (it either rained or it did not). In quantum physics the chance of rain remains at 50%, there is never a definitive 0% or 100% state. One way to view this phenomenon is to envision a piece of string. If we try to go from one end of the string to the other by exactly halving the distance each step, we would never actually get to the end of string, but we would get very, very close. Schrödinger’s equation works in a similar fashion when trying to compute probabilities in quantum mechanics – it never yields a definitive state of 0% or 100% probabilities. Hence, nothing in the quantum world is definitive – it is all probability based – so we can say that it both rained and it did not rain. If you are interested reading more about this phenomenon you can read about Schrödinger’s Cat.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Is there a God? (Part I)

Is there a God? For many people this is an easy answer of yes or no. With a background in math and science I have been agnostic most of life trying to find proof of a God (good luck with that happening, right?). Math and science, for most the part, have been at odds with the existence of God. After all, there were scientific explanations for everything to dismiss the existence of God: How the universe was created; how life formed and evolved; and the entire history and formation of our planet, Earth. But still, one could argue that all of the scientific explanations (if true) could all have been part of God’s plan. Hence, in my view, the revelation of evolution does not exclude the existence of a God.

Over the years I struggled with the topic of God and religion. Finally, I determined that my issues were not necessarily with God and faith, but with religion. I thought if God existed, God would not take kindly to the hundreds of different types of religions – especially when most wars are fought over their varying beliefs. Flawed religions kept me from trying to find answers of the existence of God for decades. Once I was able to set aside religion from the equation, I was able to move forward and give this question more thought.

Gazing into the sky and seeing the light from stars generated hundreds of years prior is truly amazing. How can something as astounding as our universe, with seemingly no beginning or ending, could have been created without the help of a higher being? It is hard to imagine. For life to form on Earth many things had to happen in a perfect chronological sequence for it to occur successfully. For instance, if the moon was smaller or larger or in a different orbit it could have made the formation of life much more difficult if not impossible. The Earth’s tides and even its axis of rotation would have been altered yielding vastly different weather and climate. The Earth orbits at the optimum distance from the sun to create the perfect temperature range to support life. The Earth’s atmosphere, and in particular the ozone layer, is perfectly designed to protect us from the harmful rays from the sun. Of course the Earth’s atmosphere is also composed of the perfect combination of oxygen and other elements to support life. The Earth’s magnetic field is perfectly designed to protect us from cosmic radiation. And the formation of water on Earth was essential for life (introduced through asteroid strikes). We can go on and on, but you get the picture. So what is the probability of all these things occurring exactly in the right chronological sequence to make Earth the perfect place for life? I do not know, but it is probably pretty slim to none. Some can see this as an intervention by God, others can say that there are billions of planets in the universe and that all these perfect things happening to one planet is not that farfetched in terms of probability.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

College Football Selection Committee Decisions Make Little Sense

An NCAA committee selects four college football teams to play for the national championship once the regular season and conference championship games are complete. This year they selected Alabama (13-0, Southeast Conference Champs – 1 seed), Clemson (12-1, Atlantic Coast Conference Champs – 2nd seed), Ohio State (11-1, Big 10 Conference 2nd place in East Division, 3rd seed), and Washington (12-1, Pacific Athletic Conference Champs – 4th seed). The committee also considered Penn State (11-2, Big 10 Conference Champs) and Michigan (10-2, Big 10 Conference 3rd place in the East Division).

No one can argue with the selection of Alabama or Clemson. Both played tough schedules and won their conference championships. And it is probably acceptable that the committee left Michigan out of the tournament. Although I think they have a better argument to be in the tournament than Washington.

Does Ohio State deserve to be in the field ahead of Penn State? Penn State beat Ohio State, they had the best record in the nation’s toughest conference (The Big 10), and they won the conference championship outright. Penn State was also the second hottest team in the country winning 9 straight games (only Alabama has done better). The problem with Penn State is that they have 2 loses. They lost a game at Pittsburgh (8-4, 42-39 final) and they got crushed at Michigan in the conference opener (49-10 final). But Penn State was hot and beat two top 10 teams and was crushing weaker opponents to finish the season.

Does Washington deserve to be in the field ahead of Penn State? The problem with Washington is that they played the 108th weakest schedule in the country (out of 128 Division 1 teams). That is pitiful, but the committee argues that Penn State had a bad loss at Pittsburgh. However, what the committee fails to mention is that Pittsburgh also gave Clemson its only loss (and it was at Clemson) and they are ranked in the top 25. Pittsburgh was obviously a dangerous team to play. What if Washington had to play 3 top 10 teams and a couple more top 25 teams? Washington lost its only game against a top 10 team (USC) and only has one other victory against a top 25 team (Colorado). Penn State played 6 games against top 25 teams (4-2), and 3 of those games were against top 10 teams (2-1). What if Washington had to play another 2 games against top 10 teams and 4 against top 25 teams (instead of patsies), would they still have one loss? Probably not. It is hard to get for and to play tough games week in and week out. This tests the mental state of a team which has not been challenged in Washington’s schedule. Washington was 1-1 against top 25 teams (0-1 against the top 10). Michigan was much more qualified then Washington also going 4-2 against top 25 teams and 2-1 against top 10 teams. And let’s not forget that the committee seeded Ohio State ahead of Washington even though they did not win the Big 10 Conference and have a worse record (1 less win).

Washington and Ohio State are very good teams. But why should Ohio State benefit from playing one less game because they did not even make the Big 10 Championship game (what if they played in the championship game and lost, they would not be in the tournament)? And why would Washington benefit from playing a weak schedule? The selection committee has always selected Conference Champions and said they consider head to head games as a tie breaker – but Ohio State makes the championship field. One reason a team like Western Michigan (13-0, Champions on the Mid-American Conference) were not considered for the championship field is because they play a weak schedule. Western Michigan’s schedule was much weaker than Washington’s but the difference in the strength of schedule between Penn State and Washington was about the same as Washington and Western Michigan (considering FBS teams as well). Using the committee’s logic of prioritizing loses over strength of schedule, then Western Michigan should have been selected over Washington since they have 1 less loss (just like Washington has one less loss than Penn State). If you do not include strength of schedule then teams will schedule patsies in non-conference games.

The goal of the committee is to get the best 4 teams in the championship tournament and maybe they did. But it is hard to think that Washington is better than both Penn State and Michigan who played a much superior schedule. It is even harder to consider how Ohio State gets in the championship tournament without Penn State also in the tournament. Why reward teams that do not win their conference and that lost to the team that won the conference? A few years back the committee rewarded Ohio State over other teams because they won the Big 10 Championship even though the conference was weak that year. I suppose the committee likes to keep the status quo and benefit teams that have a solid history like Ohio State.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

Roosevelt and Taft:The Fathers of Modern Day Liberalism (Part II)

Domestically, Taft was very much built in the progressive Roosevelt image. For that reason, Roosevelt pushed for Taft to succeed him in 1908 which was done successfully. Taft’s four years as president may have been more productive than Roosevelt’s 7.5 years (Roosevelt was vice president when McKinley was assassinated. Interestingly, Republicans placed Roosevelt in the vice president (VP) position to keep him out of the way since the VP has limited power. Ironically, Taft would have more than likely been the 1904 Republican candidate had McKinley not been assassinated). Taft used the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up dozens of monopolies; passed an income tax amendment to the constitution; granted two more territories statehood; passed new corporate taxes; and was the first to push for the passage of free trade laws (protectionism tariffs had been the central government philosophy up to that point). In response to a major recession under the Roosevelt presidency (many blamed it on his anti-corporation laws) Taft created what would eventually turn into the Federal Reserve (under Woodrow Wilson) and he created the postal savings system where people can save their money in a government bank instead of private banks that failed at a high rate during the Roosevelt recession.

Roosevelt was not particularly happy with Taft once he became president. Roosevelt was not happy that Taft removed all his cabinet members and he was not happy that he undid many of his regulations especially western land grabs. Taft thought that Roosevelt violated the Constitution by circumventing congress to make many western lands public property. Even though Taft successfully got Congress to legally approve the land grabs, Roosevelt was beside himself. The rift was so bad that Roosevelt decided to be the first president to seek a third term. The Republican primary between Roosevelt and Taft was heated. It was the first time a presidential election held primaries where the people of each state decided the delegates and the outcome (similar to our present day system – 13 states used the primary system and the rest used the conventional manner at that time to decide elections at the convention). Hence, it became the first election where candidates went to states to campaign for votes in the primary season. Roosevelt’s rhetoric was just as harsh as anything we may witness today. Taft would not stoop to Roosevelt’s level other than to defend himself over the many falsehoods that Roosevelt claimed. Roosevelt won most of the primaries but Taft won the nomination at the Convention winning most states who did not have a primary. Roosevelt was upset and felt the Republican nomination was robbed from him. Roosevelt decided to run in 1912 as a third party candidate – the progressive Bull Moose Party. The unfortunate outcome of this skirmish is that it allowed Woodrow Wilson win the presidency. Taft would have won the presidency if it were not for Roosevelt’s massive super ego.

Wilson continued the progressive movement started by Roosevelt and Taft. Wilson lowered the protection tariffs, instituted a progressive Federal Income Tax, passed Child Labor Laws, and passed the Federal Reserve Act. Wilson tried to create a League of Nations (our United Nations today) but failed after WWI. This action was not much different than a treaty created by Taft with many nations to decide issues through arbitration to avoid wars (This agitated the war thirsty Roosevelt). In fact, everything Wilson did was merely an enhancement of Roosevelt and Taft policies. Wilson was Taft and Roosevelt on steroids. Hence, the start of the progressive era with each liberal president trying to outdo their predecessor (not with new ideas, but by making old ideas more restrictive).

Taft and Roosevelt were the fathers of Democratic progressive policies. To Taft and Roosevelt’s credit, back in their day, there was a need for child labor laws, working condition laws, and so forth. Today, the need for unions and further regulations are not needed nearly to the extent as they were needed in the beginning of the twentieth century. However, that has not stopped Democrats and liberals from being more intrusive by creating more laws, taxes, and regulations to beat down corporations. But all the ideas of progressive policies originated from Republicans – everything from an inheritance tax to radical ideas such as repealing judicial decisions came from these two Republicans. They even championed ideas that are a part of American tradition today: women’s suffrage, election of Senators (originally Senators were appointed by state legislators), election primaries, and free trade.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

Anderson Cooper Attacks Trump by Flattering Himself

Anderson Cooper should stop flattering himself. His highlight on his show last evening was how Trump tweeted him (at 2am) over his liberally lopsided views on his program the day before. Trump should not even have the time to do this Cooper said. This was the top story and there was no mention about how Trump is making a deal for 1000 manufacturing workers to keep their jobs in Indiana instead of having them move to Mexico. It was another Trump assault by Cooper masterful pulled off by flattering himself. Now that is an egomaniac.

I wonder where the Clinton News Network (CNN) has been the past eight years? They did not seem to care that Obama spent most of his time on the job campaigning to raise money for the DNC, playing basketball or golf, sitting in on talk show TV programs yucking it up with other liberals, playing NCAA Men’s Basketball brackets on ESPN, vacationing, or sleeping. And when Obama was not doing these things he was complaining about Fox News. Where was the outrage when Obama sat on a plane going to Vegas for fund raiser as we were under attack in Benghazi, Libya? Where is the outrage and concern over Obama blaming the election loses on Fox News yesterday? News flash to Cooper, this is how Trump finds the time: Trump works 20 hours a day, he does not sleep much, he does not vacation, and he does not even take a pay check. And on top of that he did Obama’s job yesterday of saving those manufacturing jobs in Indiana making him the most successful presidential elect in our history – already doing the job of President.

I know Trump will not get a fair shake, but this is ridiculous. The media is making itself look more and more incompetent. Cooper lost all respect with me earlier this year when he questioned how Florida Attorney General, Pam Bondi, could care about the loss of life at the Orlando night club shooting when she did not back gay marriage. Really? Because you do not support gay marriage you want gay people to die! These are conclusions that our liberal media make. I do not understand how Cooper still has a job after making those statements.