An Independent Can Win in 2020

An independent could win the Presidency. Donald Trump was as close to being an independent as one is likely to get though.

The Democrat Party has evolved since the Clintons of 1992 to a moribund condition. An independent that could disentangle ecospheric issues from moral issues such that ecosphere reform is without immorality preconditions (how does homosexuality, recreational drugs or abortion actually have any relevance to global warming?) could get some votes from people somewhat disgusted with matters of immorality the Supreme Court decides eventually anyway.

An independent would probably need to be a billionaire or someone with tremendous resources able to buy advertising without party contributions and with the media likely against them. If the candidate isn’t actually very different politically from the party candidates whats the point though?

Probably an independent candidate would have a position equivalent to an independent primary party that merges to take over the mainstream party to run as the party candidate. President Trump worked something like that. So a candidate with numerous independent ideas could present them and try to get enough support to get delegates for the national convention and the nomination eventually.

Usually regular candidates try to present a formula for a platform appealing to enough voters to get a nomination instead of leading with new and independent ideas that attract enough voters that recognize the reason and utility of the ideas.

A candidate that has ideas about reforming capitalism and environmental economics, securing the borders, renewing the environment and eliminating poverty could draw voters from all parties. The trouble is that the people that run require tons of money just to start.

There is also the problem of brownie point qualifications. Candidates need to have a PhD in Environmental economics, be as svelte as a decathalete, rugged as Chuck Norris and have graduated from West Point with a Silver Star from Thermopylae, the Croix de Guerre with clusters and be a Mister Rogers Bible instructor who gives blood twice a week while serving food to the homeless at a leprosarium.

In Answer to the Question; 'What if Electrons Were Not Added to or Subtracted from Atoms'

It’s a bit of a trick question I think. Every atom would need to remain as it is without change within each atom everywhere in the Universe (s). Change even such as radiation and photons travelling about would change things. Motion might need to stop too for electrons to never leave atoms, yet electrons are in motion. Force in general is the motion of energy in a way.

At absolute zero energy is quite minimal. One scientist coupled an electron to a Bose-Einstein condensate and it had a long lifetime.
  Coupling a single electron to a Bose–Einstein condensate

Neutrinos without charge exist and that makes one wonder if they aren’t implicitly balanced charges without excess. An electron is a lepton and neutrinos are called electron neutrinos. If atoms were made with orbiting neutrinos it would be a different Universe. Electrons have negative charge. The nucleus has a positive charge. What if gravity instead has a micro-warp effect that make electrons and nuclei seem to be charged when instead they aren’t?

Electron neutrino - Wikipedia

Someone wrote that positrons have a positive charge because of their quarks-even so at the very heart of it gravity could be the source of micro-warping space.

Image by Geek3 - Own work; created with hydrogen-cloud in PythonThis PNG graphic was created with Python., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=69032672

It is amazing to think that if space were rightly shaped energy would flow and settle in to it like water in a dimpled tray. Physicists found that electrons have a life-span that is at least five quintillion times the age of the Universe. Maybe then atoms should be regarded as temporary and electrons permanent.

Electron "Lifespan" is at Least 5 Quintillion Times the Age of the Universe

Heat Waves and Solar Heat Absorbing Asphalt

Is walking on a noonday in July asphalt street in Phoenix any less challenging that walking over hot coals in Honolulu? Asphalt streets absorb sunshine; a huge amount of it to release the heat during the day and the night creating micro-climates and global warming synergy. It would be good to make roads white to increase reflectivity and the national albedo, yet better to make it white and solar voltaic or electron capturing to produce electricity for electric cars.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/11/heatwave-climate-change-americans-survey

People usually really don't understand how many square miles of asphalt exist in the nation or the total capture of extra solar heat in comparison to natural earth and plants on the same places.

The June 2018 temperature average was the third highest in U.S. history a bit more than 3 degrees above average. https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201806

If one considers just Arizona's addition to national average temperature with asphalt roads, parking lots and fossil fuel exhaust going up into the atmosphere and wind flowing east to warm up the already warm Gulf Coast with its already warmed Gulf of Mexico waters its easy to understand the 3 degree higher temperature.

There are, according to the national asphalt association, more than 2.7 million miles of asphalt roads in the U.S.A. In fact 94% of roads are paved with asphalt. That is a good way to heat up the night. Asphalt is partly at fault for global warming.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122017/big-oil-heartland-climate-science-misinformation-campaign-koch-api-trump-infographic

A Present Logic of Nuclear Disarmament

There are more than 14,000 nuclear weapons in the world. The United States has a little more than 6000. Actually Russia has more.

Games theorists and arms negotiators would say that unilateral disarmament is taken as a sign of weakness that invites attack. With such an adverse world social environment the United States would be remiss in looking after self-defense to unilaterally disarm.
The Tsar bomb of the Soviet Union- the world’s largest that was exploded at Novaya Zemlya, it is said, if exploded at the right depth of the Marianas trench would destroy the world causing gross tsunami and tectonic plate disturbances, earthquakes etc. Plainly nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity.

It wasn’t the United States that began the first or second world wars. The U.S.A. and it’s allies finished it. The nuclear big three are those nations that fought against the axis powers. Humanity has generally not shown a level of maturity that would foster such trust that any super-power would disarm as Pres. Ronald Reagan sought to do. Surprisingly for some, President Reagan’s goal was complete nuclear disarmament. Unfortunately in the aftermath of the Cold War, and after the substantial reductions in nuclear arms, President Clinton levered Boris Yeltsin to give up the Ukraine and Crimea that had historically been integral parts of Russia, and that caused lasting enmity. The west has been hostile to Russia for some time, and Europe is hardly a trustworthy partner for Russians that have suffered European invasions repeatedly in history with the loss of tens of millions to wars.

There are other weapons of mass destruction besides nuclear that are challenges to world survival today that need also be addressed. Persistent solid nerve agents such as Novichok recently used in England are grave threats to population centers. Biological weapons are radically dangerous with all the genetic recombination technology, and the list goes on.
Because economic reform as well as an update of the theory of capitalism have not been synced with ecospheric renewal the implicit instability of geopolitics render complete disarmament improbable. Without faith in Jesus Christ the problem of original sin prevails.

Against Stockfish, Disappear the FIsh's Knights

I started learning chess in 2012. I noticed that knights are the most important pieces that need to be eliminated when a novice is playing someone much higher ranked. Stockfish the chess engine and candidate masters use them to make a mockery of the novice. Bishops fundamentally are assassins used to kill the knights.

That being said, it is fun to control the diagonals with bishops and even checkmate such as So did vs. Kramnik in a famous game. Vlad studied the board 15, 20 minutes before resigning.

In blitz chess tournaments players rated 500 points better just know the algorithms for openings too well and hop the d__mn knights around eventually killing off one’s nice calculated position for mating with bishops.

If playing Stockfish the game will last longer if you take fish’s knights off the board.

If one is playing against an opponent rated two or three hundred points higher, its practical. Usually I like to keep my bishops too. The trouble is that novices can’t calculate knight movements easily-especially in blitz time control. It is easier to calculate pawn, bishop and rook, movements for novices. Against Stockfish or a player hundreds of points better one should take away that supremacy and force them to an endgame that’s unbalanced. Against some players it isn't necessary to chop the knights right away. Timing matters; if the player seems early to be a hyper active knight player then chop them. Alternatively if he leaves the knights on that back rank let the sleeping dogs lie.

U.S. Likely to Keep Troops Based in Afghanistan Permanently

More than seventy years after the end of the war with Japan the United States still has 39,000 troops stationed there. In Germany, 3rd Reichland, the United States still has 35,000. In Afghanistan, seventeen years after 9-11, the United States has fewer than 10,000- and it is still a hotbed of terror activity and coordination. The United States cannot afford to once again dump Afghanistan to the care of militant lunatic warlords.

Actually Afghanistan is centrally located and a good position for a rapid response force to Asian troubles that could arise. So long as the government of Afghanistan wants a U.S. troop presence some should remain.

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-11/three-reasons-for-trump-to-end-the-afghanistan-forever-war

It would be good to cut down on global troop deployments obviously in order to save money. There are just 200,000 U.S. military forces based abroad presently and that number isn't too high if it helps keep the peace.

http://www.visualcapitalist.com/u-s-military-personnel-deployments-country/

What about saving money in Europe with increased N.A.T.O. national spending beside American? The President was right about that.

Germany and Poland worry about Russia. Demagoguery about Vladimir Putin and his 'aggression' for retaking parts of Russia lost to Bill Clinton by Boris Yeltsin is common. Russia isn't going to roll troops into Baltic nation as if it were Czechoslovakia in 1968 or even launch a Blitzkrieg. Basically its bullwhip. With the slightest effort the United States could be on very good terms with Russia and even consider a free trade deal along with free expression and travel reciprocally. Reagan might have spoke about constructive engagement with Russia and helped Russians learn to become more liberal and drink vodka that's iced. The likeliest prospect for war with Russia would be if a NATO nation repeated Hitler's excuse for invading Poland with a BS premise, with Russia being the target instead of Poland.

By Graham Robson-Parker - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=50055652

Germany rarely sends troops to fight overseas with N.A.T.O. because of the NAZI heritage and it is convenient to get NATO protection. Germany does have maybe the best troops carrier with automatic weapons, yet it costs 12 million dollars and Russia's are almost as good as though of Turkey that cost just a couple million. In any case Germany won't use their armor anyplace unless Russia attacks... it must be a joke to envision Germany sending some of those 12 million dollar armored personnel carriers to Afghanistan.

Poland worries to much about Russia- wasn't it the Germans that invaded Poland, while the Soviets liberated it? Poles do contribute to NATO missions well enough. Even so NATO HQ should be moved to England with a dual HQ in Poland and the Tusk of NATO should be replaced by some Polish fellow so they will feel better. Maybe Poland would like Germany to send some of the 12 million dollar Boxer troops carriers to patrol their frontier to race Russian troops carriers on Saturdays?

Pres Trump’s Toynbee Rating C+

Pres Trump’s Toynbee Rating C+

The historian Arnold Toynbee wrote a number of history books examining world civilization (s) that was titled ‘A Study of History. In that work he examined 23 civilizations that had existed and developed a thesis regarding similarities in their structures and why they rose and fell. In that context I would like to consider President Trump’s work so far in light of Toynbean criteria regarding the United States. The Toynbee S-R criteria of challenge and response for a civilization is examined with the political leader's work in mind.

Toynbee provided several salient features of civilizations with which one may consider the U.S. situation. It has an internal and external proletariat of Mexicans. It has a (nearly) former majority transitioning to become a repressive minority. It has a wealth class that invests far beyond its borders and lets the nation be flooded by the external proletariat and foreign investors owning business and collecting rents.

Those are not the sole elements of Toynbee’s paradigm the U.S.A. shares with civilizations such as that of ancient Rome and possibly the British Empire among others. The leadership is also unable to change from its old economic infrastructure of fossil fuel transportation and move to the new (such as electric lines in freeways to power electric cars) and thus become surpassed by economic leadership and competition abroad.

President Trump rates a C+ for trying unsuccessfully to defend the border against an inflow of cheap labor from the external proletariat. He rates a D for reinforcing too much the overly mature fossil fuel technology and downgrading electric personal transport vehicles, and a B for trying to stop the loss of American capital investment abroad.

Google, MSN, Edge, Bing,Yahoo Don't Allow News Source Control

Allowing readers to choose what news sources they have on a news aggreegator page used to be standard. Google news still allows a reader to 'hide' news sources yet I have found that doesn't work worth a damn. I have tried to get rid of the Washington Post, CNN and NPR for weeks and so Google news led off with three Washington Post stories and more content from CNN and NPR continues to appear.

Imagine going to a library and discovering that the library staff chose the books you may read. News aggregator pages present a lot of bs and entertainment yet just don't allow smart choices of news sources. The Internet at a bulk level has made news fundamentally, a propaganda and control device for the rich.

I checked out several specialized news aggregator pages and they are basically bull too. Google reader used to work fine, yet it was closed down years ago.

The Internet is becoming less useful and more time wasting in the tradition of MSN... Why does MSN need three pages (Bing, Edge) and none that allow intelligent personal choice of news sources?. People should not be forced to choose to be dumb and have idiots choose their news sources for them nor spend hours researching where a news aggregator that doesn't want to manage your FB page is..

Brit Zero Tariff Trade with US is Contingent on Brexit

Britain needs to cut ties with the EU to have a free trade zero tariff deal with the U.S.A. The U.S.A. cannot allow Europe to piggyback on Britain's special status. 

Britain is slipping into darkness having trouble making Brexit work. It shouldn't be that difficult to employ sappers to demolish the links to the continent, yet they can't get it done. I believe a new British PM might be able to get the job done. The right guy for the job just might be former World Chess Championship challenger Nigel Short.

 GM Short is presently running for the Presidency of the world chess organization FIDE. He could maybe be induced to just jump into the real world of punch and roll British politics and be willing to accept the post of Prime Minister simply to get Brexit done. How difficult can it be?

Maybe President Donald Trump can advise the Brits on how to get Brexit done. I believe he could find a way, shortly.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-what-happens-next-british-pm-theresa-may-n890151

During the Second World War Prime Minister Churchill was able to face down the evil of the continent with a little American and allied help. If England is not to be effectively annexed onto Europe to serve as a parking lot with fish and chips shops and ye old quaint buildings it needs to reinforce its own national security with the same kind of spirit as Winston Churchill. Britain's back-blast from its age of colonialism could erase it altogether without care. Plainly it needs a Christian spiritual revival and secure borders to bring it into the global arena with free trade without attachment and culture submissiveness.  

Brits May Need GM Short or Pres Trump to Work Brexit for Them

Britain is having trouble making Brexit work. It shouldn't be that difficult to employ sappers to demolish the links to the continent, yet they can't get it done. I believe a new British PM might be able to get the job done. The right guy for the job just might be former World Chess Championship challenger Nigel Short.

 GM Short is presently running for the Presidency of the world chess organization FIDE. He could maybe be induced to just jump into the real world of punch and roll British politics and be willing to accept the post of Prime Minister simply to get Brexit done. How difficult can it be?

Maybe President Donald Trump can advise the Brits on how to get Brexit done. I believe he could find a way, shortly.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/brexit-referendum/brexit-chaos-what-happens-next-british-pm-theresa-may-n890151

Britain needs to cut ties with the EU to have a free trade zero tariff deal with the U.S.A. The U.S.A. cannot allow Europe to piggyback on Britain's special status.