Sample Mortgage Form In New Hampshire: Fill & Download for Free

First, I have seen some evidence on both sides of the argument that higher taxes applied by individual states can result in a small number of people moving to an adjacent state. Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey come to mind. The evidence is somewhat inconclusive, mainly because the time of follow up and sample sizes are too small to draw serious, dispositive conclusions.But it’s really one thing to levy higher taxes in a state and quite another to raise national income taxes. It’s relatively easy to sell your house in Boston and move to New Hampshire to escape punitive taxes in Massachusetts. It’s quite another to move out of the country entirely. So, an apples-apples comparison based on how behaviour in states is affected is not possible.Second, one thing that I always find very hollow about rich guys (like, say Warren Buffet) volunteering for higher taxes is that they always talk about income taxes.Well, Buffet (and Gates and other uber-billionaires) are taxed on income largely from investments (i.e., capital gains taxes). Raising the marginal income tax rates - if nothing is done to capital gains - will actually have pretty much zero effect on them. They are basically “volunteering” to raise taxes on someone else.Nice.And worse still, they never seem to talk about wealth taxes, only income.Let’s see the logical end-game of this.Imagine you’re a billionaire. You own multiple houses (without a mortgage) in the most desirable real estate on earth. Your bank account puts you in the top 1/100th of one per cent of rich folks. Maybe you own a jet or two. A fleet of expensive cars. You can spread your influence around based on what you already have.Now, let’s say that we enact a 100 per cent tax on all income over $1,000,000. Guess what? That means that no-one who is not already a wealthy plutocrat will ever become one. Your big house? No one other than your kids will be able to buy it. No-one other than your family and other rich guy friends will acquire the sort of wealth that allows you to fly to Davos and have tea with the head of the IMF or be taken seriously when you spout out ridiculous ideas about politics.If we go after income, but not wealth, it will basically freeze the economic (and thus power) structure of the country exactly as it is right now. With Buffet, Gates, and the other billionaires at the top.Does that sound “egalitarian” to you?If rich guys like Buffet want me to take them seriously, forget about income taxes, which are for pikers.Let’s put a tax of 50% on all assets of $10 million or more. And all assets worth more than $50 million, we’ll tax at 100 per cent.Rather than preventing anyone from catching up to Buffet, if we really care about “inequality,” then let’s hear him advocate for policies that remove his established privilege.I am not a socialist, and I do not support using taxation to “spread the wealth.” But unless the rich advocate for policies that will have real impact on them, then forgive me if I regard them as hypocritical weasels.

Update: now nine major and statistically reliable studies covering 270,000 property transactions.Summary: No.Five major and statistically reliable studies covering 45,600 property transactions by different respected and independent organizations in different countries spread over a decade have found no correlation between operating wind turbines and negative property values (two found positive impacts in fact).The prestigious US-based Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found no correlation.The respected UK-based Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in combination with the Oxford Brookes University found no correlation.The US-based Renewable Energy Policy Project found positive correlations between wind turbines and property value increases.A University of Illinois Masters in Applied Economics thesis found statistical evidence that fear of an impending wind farm affects property values, but that operating wind farms do not, and that property values near operating wind farms increase faster.A recent New Hampshire study found no correlation between wind farms and property values.Fear of wind turbines impact on property values before the wind turbines are erected and shortly afterward seems to have a short-term impact on property values and sales. If so, anti-wind advocacy groups are complicit in this – arguably intentionally -- by publicizing and promoting fear of property value impacts.Respect the concernsWhether it is a home or a vacation property, the vast majority of people who buy or own rural property have a variety of deep emotional drivers attached to it. For some older people, it is the unchanging home they have been in for decades, in the midst of an often confusing and rapidly changing world. For others, it is a rural idyll, the fantasy of a hobby farm or country estate. For others, it is an escape from the vertical canyons, concrete, steel and noise of the city. For almost all of them, it represents a very large chunk of their money, with all of the attendant concerns that it might turn to dust as happened in the US with the subprime mortgage fiasco in 2008. It is worthwhile to respect the deep emotions involved in this subject. Anti-wind advocacy groups certainly do, and while some are directly motivated by fears of falling properties, many broader groups are using those fears to directly motivate grassroots organizations to form to fight wind turbines.Property values show no long-term correlation to wind turbine presenceThe best study in this field was funded by the US Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. They charged the Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory[7], a government-funded laboratory managed by the University of California. This report was delivered in 2009. [2]To ensure that the seriousness of this organization and its devotion to academic excellence and scientific truth is understood, thirteen Nobel Prize winners have been associated with the Lab and thirteen have been awarded the US National Medal of Science, the top US honor for lifetime achievements in science. Dozens more have received other extraordinary levels of recognition. This is an organization that is not for sale. This is an organization that takes its independence and excellence seriously.Here’s what they found:The present research collected data on almost 7,500 sales of single- family homes situated within 10 miles of 24 existing wind facilities in nine different U.S. states. The conclusions of the study are drawn from eight different hedonic pricing models, as well as both repeat sales and sales volume models. The various analyses are strongly consistent in that none of the models uncovers conclusive evidence of the existence of any widespread property value impacts that might be present in communities surrounding wind energy facilities.It is worth noting the arguments used against the study:It doesn’t agree with what is obviously happening around the person observing; statistics have never had much success in convincing someone who believes something and receives sufficient evidence to support their confirmation bias.The Lab is government-funded; the bona fides and independence of the LBNL are top-notch and questioning them indicates the rhetorical or intellectual disposition of the questioner.The study excluded 34 statistical outliers; statistical studies of any size do this to eliminate unrepresentative data and 34 exclusions on a sample size of 7,500 is miniscule. This study is accurate and has not been gamed.The next study is the 2007 study by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) [10] in conjunction with Oxfords Brookes University [11], [12]. These are serious, respectable and trusted institutes as well. The researchers assessed property transactions within five miles (8 kilometers) of three wind farms from 2000 to 2007. This provides geographical, distance and time-frame perspectives. They eliminated transactions where significant other factors would impact prices: a large open cast slate mine, very expensive properties, very cheap properties and sea view properties. This was to provide a clear view of specifically wind turbines’ impact on property values. This left them with 919 transactions, which is statistically valid.[5]Their findings:Despite initial evidence that there was an effect, when they investigated more closely, there were generally other factors which were more significant than the presence of a wind farm. Insofar as there was any impact on prices, the results seem to show that it is most noticeable for terraced and semi-detached houses, with there being a significant impact on properties located within a mile of a wind farm. The effect seems much less marked – if at all – for detached houses.Regarding the terraced and semi-detached houses:The view of the estate agents was that proximity to a wind farm simply was not an issue. What they did say, though, was that the properties close to one of the wind farms – St Eval – were, in fact, ex-Ministry of Defence properties, and so less desirable than similar properties.To paraphrase, while people blamed wind turbines for property value decreases, other factors were much more significant, and detached homes, the dominant form of real estate near wind farms showed no price impacts.Unfortunately, RICS has removed this survey from their available publications on their website and are not standing by the results of their research.The third major study worth assessing is the Renewable Energy Policy Project’s (REPP) 2003 study. While the oldest, it also assessed the largest pool of data, more than 25,000 property transactions in the USA. They looked at every home within 5 miles (8 kilometers) of ten large (>10 MW) wind developments that came online between 1998 and 2001. They gathered sales data for the control regions near the wind turbines but outside of the 5 mile (8 kilometer) boundary to ensure that they could assess differences accurately. They gathered six years worth of data covering the years leading up to and following the wind farms’ online dates. [22]It is worth noting that while this is by far the largest study with the least statistical adjustment of data, the creator of the study, REPP, is an organization whose public and stated goal is to accelerate the use of renewable energy. [13] As such, while the study design is arguably very good and sample size the largest, it is the easiest to discount due to the source.What did they find:For 8 of the 10 of the wind projects, property values increased faster inside the five mile limit than outside of it over the six years.For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than they had before.For 9 of the 10 wind projects, property values increased faster within the five mile limit after the wind projects came online than in the comparable communities.Not only did this massive study not find negative impacts on real estate values, it found exactly the opposite: wind turbines have a positive impact on real estate values.A fourth study is worthy of inclusion: "Wind Farm Proximity And Property Values: A Pooled Hedonic Regression Analysis Of Property Values In Central Illinois" by Jennifer L. Hinman in partial fulfilment of a Master in Applied Economics with Illinois State University in 2010. Her study evaluated 3,851 residential property transactions from January 1, 2001 through December 1, 2009 from McLean and Ford Counties, Illinois around the 240-turbine, Twin Groves wind farm (Phases I and II) in eastern McLean County, Illinois.Ms. Hinman's study found no correlation between a working wind farm and decreased property values, in fact saw more rapid price increases nearer to the wind farm as was observed in the REPP report. Her study most clearly shows that there is a statistical correlation between fears about a wind farm before it is erected, temporarily depressing property values, and that this temporary dip is rapidly eliminated once the wind farm is in operation.[18]Ms. Hinman also did a literature review and found the same results: all major statistically valid studies find no negative correlation, but very small studies at or just above the level of the anecdotal do find negative impacts.A preliminary Australian study indicates that this is also true south of the equator. While the sample size of sales transactions is low, they found that 40 of 45 sales transactions had no evident reduction in value in close proximity to wind farms and that properties that were in sight of wind farms found no reduction in value. [17]They also did a literature survey and summarized additional references with similarly devastating results for studies showing negative impacts:This just in, a New Hampshire study published in December 2012 assessed another 4,600 property transactions and found:While this study does not exclude the possibility of isolated cases of property value impacts attributable to the Lempster Wind Power Project, this study has found no evidence that the Project has had a consistent, statistically‐significant impact on property values within the Lempster region. This is consistent with the near unanimous findings of other studies—based their analysis on arms‐length property sales transactions—that have found no conclusive evidence of wide spread, statistically significant changes in property values resulting from wind power projects.[23]Two correlation graphs from this study paint a clear picture.Note that distances are in kilometres.Basically, there's no variance on home prices due to distance from wind turbines, and a huge correlation to size of dwellings.What is the evidence that shows negative impacts?There is one statistically valid, methodologically sound, peer-reviewed study which contradicts the preponderance of evidence above. Martin Heintzelman and Carrie Tuttle did a study of 11,331 property transactions over 9 years in three counties in Northern New York, 461 of which were within three miles of wind turbines.[19] They found that two of the three counties had significant property value decreases while the third had positive indicators. For context, this study is relatively equivalent in terms of organizational respect and depth to Ms. Hinman's study from Illinois State University; credible but not from a world-class organization such as the Berkeley Lab or RICS.A significant failing of the study that makes it difficult to trust compared to other studies is the short time frame of the data for the two counties with negative impacts. Their wind farms became operational in 2008 and 2009, basically in the last year of the data set. The county with positive impacts went live in 2006, in the middle of the data set, providing a much richer analysis space. There are several other significant differences between the two counties that showed negative results and the county with positive results as well.The two counties with negative impacts (Franklin and Clinton) had significantly fewer transactions -- 210 between them -- than the county with some positive impacts (Lewis) which had 251 transactions.The two counties with negative impacts had significantly higher resales of properties than the county with positive impacts, 75 to 65.The two counties with negative impacts are adjoining to one another with the third county two hours drive away, effectively in another community conversation region and making it possible for other local impacts to be masked; three completely separate or three completely co-located regions would have eliminated this oddity.The two counties with negative impacts had fewer wind turbines on average than the county with positive impacts (221 between them to 194 in Lewis).This region also has a robust set of anti-wind activist groups. The 2011 anti-wind documentary, Windfall [20], is from upstate New York, and Lisa Linowes, a long term anti-wind advocate with ties to astroturf-supporters such as the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers [21] was the sole technical advisor to the movie and has been active in the area.Despite the largest county with the longest history of wind energy and the most transactions having positive indicators for property values, the authors focused their conclusions dominantly on the negative counties. The authors state in their preamble that they did not believe it possible that wind turbines didn't negatively affect property values. They found the results they expected, ignoring the significant oddities in their results.The examples listed in the question and others [1], [4] represent real people telling the truth as they see it, which is to say, from a limited perspective in both space and time. What they are observing is accurate but restricted.Some people do not buy homes when they understand that wind turbines might be going up near bySome people do sell or try to sell their homes when they hear that wind turbines are going upProperty prices do dip under those conditions: this is a real occurrence, supported by the Illinois statistical study.What are the fears that are driving this?Fear of health is one, with the psychogenic Wind Turbine Syndrome and it’s equally fictitious cousin Vibro-Acoustic Disease. Note that these are not real diseases, but they are promoted by both the originators of the concept and by anti-wind advocacy groups as being real, and they are creating a health hysteria in English-language countries around wind energy.[8], [9], [13]Fear of property value decreases, which this article is assessing.Fear of wind turbines collapsing, throwing blade parts or causing fires. These are so massively unlikely that no rational analysis would include them, but they are highly evocative. [15]Fear of an innumerable (currently 113) other negative things attributed to wind turbines. [16]These are real fears of unreal things. They are strongly promoted by anti-wind advocacy groups. It is strongly arguable that anti-wind advocates drive down property prices in the run up to wind farms becoming operational just as they are creating the psychogenic health hysteria, "Wind Turbine Syndrome.:"References:[1] http://friendsofwind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/USA-2010-Hinman-Wind-Farm-Proximity-and-Property-Values.pdf[2] The Impact of Wind Power Projects on Residential Property Values in the United States: A Multi-Site Hedonic Analysis[4] http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/2012/wind-turbines-constitute-a-taking-of-private-property-value-mass/[5] http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/media/estates/kenly-farm/images/RICS%20Property%20report.pdf[6] http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/do-wind-turbines-affect-property-values/[7] http://www.lbl.gov/[8] "Wind turbine syndrome" is more wind than syndrome[9] Wind farms don't make people sick, so why the complaints?[10] http://www.rics.org/[11] http://www.brookes.ac.uk/[12] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Brookes_University[13] http://www.repp.org/aboutus.html[14] Humans evolved with infrasound; is there any truth to health concerns about it?[15] Wind farms causing fires? All smoke, no flame[16] http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/assets/pdfs/publications/WindfarmDiseases.docx[17] http://www.lpma.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/117621/t0L51WT8.pdf[18] http://friendsofwind.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/USA-2010-Hinman-Wind-Farm-Proximity-and-Property-Values.pdf[19] http://clarkson.academia.edu/MartinHeintzelman/Papers/1155349/Values_in_the_Wind_A_Hedonic_Analysis_of_Wind_Power_Facilities[20] http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1581829/[21] http://checksandbalancesproject.org/2011/08/12/lisa-linowes-and-the-disinformation-of-industrial-wind-action-group/[22] http://www.repp.org/articles/static/1/binaries/wind_online_final.pdf[23] http://windworksvermont.org/uploads/14B_lempster_property_value_impacts_final.pdf

I have been SOOOO wrong in terms of Donald Trump’s ability to procure the 2016 Republican nomination for the US presidency. Wrong. Over and over again wrong. :(There is no way…. Given Mr. Trump’s megalomaniacal nature and unprecedented negative approval ratings - and considering what I knew about US politics to date - I assured my family and loved ones that there is no way possible Donald Trump could procure the 2016 Republican nomination for presidency.I was wrong.SYNOPSIS OF MY REASONING:How is it possible? Trump has zero political experience. O-Kaaaaay.Oh right, he is running as the anti-establishment, as the dealmaker, on his record as a shrewd businessperson building a multi-billion-dollar empire from scraps.I. SO THEN, ON TRUMP’S BUSINESS ACUITY:Trump’s not the self-starter he’d like us to think he is. Trump likes people to believe he is a self-made man and that he initiated and built his financial empire with very little help. He talks of the help he got on his first real estate deal with The Grand Hyatt: “It has not been easy for me. …I started off in Brooklyn, my father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.” (New Hampshire town hall meeting, October 26, 2015).Ignoring the fact that a million dollars in 1978 was 73 times the median family ANNUAL income of $13,650 (Median Household Income in the United States), the actual numbers and help - including the fact that his father’s connections secured the Hyatt deal in the first place, that Trump was given and loaned millions more dollars in the deal, and that half of a 70 million bank loan was guaranteed (i.e. co-signed) by his father - is omitted in Trump’s recollections. So was the approximate $10 million dollar loan he borrowed against his future inheritance, the (illegal) $7.5 million dollar loan from his dad when his casino was failing, and millions more in various loans from his family in the early days. Trump’s false claim he built his empire with a ‘small loan’ from his father.Not to mention just the fact that Trump started it all by being granted a position in his dad’s real estate business.Truely it seems the primary reason Trump is rich is because of his father’s political and business connections. Yes, Donald Trump’s dad really is the reason he’s RichTrump also has numerous documented business failings and four corporate bankruptcies. See how much the bankruptcies have cost US taxpayers here: By the Numbers: Donald Trump's $4.7 Billion in Bankruptcies - Dividend Reference.Donald Trump has continued dubious business practices:Panama building saga offers insight into Trump practice,Donald Trump’s Business Career Has Been One of Bullying Ordinary Citizens,Trump University controversy ... in 2 minutes.The Definitive Roundup of Trump’s Scandals and Business FailuresTrump refuses to release his current income taxes to the public. The release of tax records has been a standard right of passage for presidency in the US since the 70s. Does Mr. Trump not release his own, for fear people will find out he doesn’t have as much money as he claims? Or because he is using so many corporate loopholes or has unethically concealed income and has not paid enough taxes?When Trump did release information on his taxes back in 2008, it showed he paid very little, and that for two years, he paid nothing. Trump once revealed his income tax returns. They showed he didn’t pay a cent.II. ON CHARACTER:Trump is a pathological liar. See as a sampling in March 2016 when POLITICO fact-checked 4.6 hours of Mr. Trump’s public statements and found "more than five dozen statements deemed mischaracterizations, exaggerations, or simply false." Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods.Donald Trump writes on lying, which he euphemizes as hyperbole in his 1987 best-selling pseudo-memoir, The Art of the Deal: “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” (pg. 58)Trump is sexist, racist, and bigoted. Every time Trump denigrated another segment of society, I believed for sure it would be his downfall. He went from women to blacks to Hispanics to Muslims, to other candidates to President Obama to our government as a whole, to US war veterans to people with disabilities to the media to the Pope, and to I-can’t-remember-who-else.I won’t even bother citing the above. Just google, “Donald Trump denigrates (fill-in-the-blank-with-just-about-any-segment-of-society).”[Oh wait, I just tripped across a good list of Trump’s bigoted statements and am sticking it in here!: Dear America: This Is Your Republican Presidential Front-Runner, Donald Trump] It’s a scary list.Each time he disparaged another group, I thought there could be no way he would survive it. On and on he went, and on and on I predicted inaccurately.Trump has incredibly poor judgment and is reactive, vindictive, and DANGEROUS. Trump fails to discourage and in fact incites violence at his rallies (Video Shows Exactly How Donald Trump Incited Assault on Protester), he cozies up to Vladimir Putin (Donald Trump's bromance with Vladimir Putin), and he shows an inability to refrain from attacking back - and harder - when challenged. Trump’s wife, Melania, champions this last phenomenon to a cheering crowd in Milwaukee: Melania Trump: When You Attack Donald, He Will Punch Back 10 Times HarderPerhaps the easiest way to review the danger claims is to google, Trump danger, and see all the hits. Here are a few good ones:America's Agitator: Donald Trump Is the World's Most Dangerous Man - SPIEGEL ONLINEHere’s what demagogues like Trump do to their countries when they take powerhttp://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-03-30/donald-trump-is-a-danger-to-americas-reputation-and-global-stabilityIII. ON TRUMP’S KNOWLEDGE BASE FOR THE JOB AND HOW HE CHANGES HIS STANCE ON ISSUES LIKE HE CHANGES A SHIRTTrump knows nothing about creating a feasible economic or tax plan or using diplomacy versus manipulation and power plays, and he continues to change his stance back and forth on key issues. Five times Donald Trump changed his position on a really big issue.Trump states last August that he gets his foreign policy knowledge from watching television shows (!) http://contemptor.com/2015/08/16/donald-trump-i-get-my-military-and-foreign-policy-advice-from-watching-tv-shows/)When asked recently with whom he confers about foreign policy matters, Trump states he consults “with myself, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things” (On foreign policy matters, Donald Trump consults “with myself, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things”). Can we say narcissist? And idiot???Gosh it’s embarrassing to be an American right now.__________________SO HOW CAN TRUMP STAND TODAY, INDEED THE REPUBLICAN ELECTORATE FOR PRESIDENT? How was I so wrong about this?I, like many, had underestimated the cocktail of circumstances which led up to the Trump nomination, which includes:The 2008 collapse of Wallstreet, the US banking industry, and the economy. I just saw the 2015 film, The Big Short, and recommend it for anyone who wants to better understand how this happened. It’s also very well written and acted and intermixes a lot of humor, which helps balance the heavy subject matter. A trailer for the movie:2. The slow and ineffectual rate at which the economic reform of the current administration has reached the lower middle and working classes, despite a record Wallstreet and banking and mortgage industry recovery. Wall Street flirts with record high levels as companies report, U.S. Bank Profits Near Record LevelsMuch of this delay has been due to a naysaying congress who vowed on the night of the President Obama’s inaugration to block every single piece of legislation he puts forward. The Republicans' Plan for the New PresidentRegardless, recovery from the worst US recession since the great depression of 1929 takes a long time to heal. But the very real, drawn-out nightmare of day-to-day struggles and the stresses of lost jobs and homes and lost hopes and dreams and of deciding between paying the electric bill or buying diapers, has been an integral part of people’s understandable anger and disillusionment with organized government. So many people are just not seeing their government working for them, especially the little guy. Study: Recession Hit Working-Class And Black Families The HardestAs the economy has continued to heal, the rich stayed rich, and many in the top ten percent, and especially in the top one percent, got richer The Rich Get Richer Through the Recovery, while the middle class and poor were still struggling.3. The resultant growing disenchantment and distrust of and anger towards government and anything that smacks of governmental authority or regulation. Certain devisive factions (Fox news, conservative talk radio, right-wing Internet news sources, and various political pundants and politicians) were hyping up this growing mistrust, anger, and fear. Right Wing Propaganda Has Done Nothing But Incite Fear and Hatred of All Americans Much of conservative media has worked to fight President Obama by exploiting people’s fear and lack of understanding, and now, to many of their collective dismays, Trump has picked up the baton.4. The ability of Mr. Trump to exploit this mistrust, anger, and fear, and use lies (see above) to his advantage. Trump’s wealth, his celebrity and his charisma helped. But further he is a master manipulator, a shyster, a demagogue, and a rat. (source: me ;) )And can he sell it. Trump throws out lies like popcorn to seagulls, and his supporters don’t even mind that he lies. Trump seems to have his supporters sold on the idea that since all politicians lie, it doesn’t matter that he does it, even to a profoundly greater extent and with more brazenness. That is part of his appeal.There are also the phenomena of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance working here, the latter of which is explained here: See Why Trump supporters are not bothered by his many, many lies5. Anti-establishment wins. Despite Trump’s unprecedented negative approval ratings from the start, the Republican candidates were split with three anti-establishment candidates (Trump, Fiorina, and Carsen) on one side and 14 (establishment politician) candidates on the other. Once Fiorina and Carsen dropped in numbers, Trump was the only anti-establishment candidate left, whereby the rest of the fields’ votes were spread out over a number of candidates. So even in a 50/50 field of anti-establishment versus establishment voters, Trump would gain 50 percent of the votes, whereas the other 50 percent was spread out over the whole rest of the establishment candidates..So that’s basically how he did it. I know there are more reasons and that I may not have explained all of them perfectly here.Note to the rest of the world: Please don’t hold all of America or even all of Trump supporters accountable for this. Like any good demogogue, Trump has parlayed the growing restlessness, fear, disillusionment, divisiveness, and anger of the American people to his own gain of personal power and fame. He is good at exaggerating a problem and becoming the answer We Found the Page From a Book Trump Wrote Decades Ago That Reveals Why He Is the Way He IsIt’s not (all of) his supporters’ faults — (though for so many, YES it is! )— but it is not representative of the vast majority of us who are proud to call the United States our home.On most days… ;)EDIT 8/7/2018: Of course we also know now there was all the gerrymandering of districts to skew the vote, and of course, all the help from Russia. :(EDIT 12/6/18: Two years now into Trump’s presidency, all is of course unraveling under Special Investigator Robert Meuller. Criminal and civil lawsuits, indictments, and guilty pleas of Trump’s entourage are growing daily and exponentially, and it appears any day the full house of cards will fall. With just the evidence known publically, I have to believe Trump will be lucky to evade jail, and regardless I cannot see how he cannot be held accountable in some fashion for at the bery least, colluding with a foreign advisory to win the election, breaching of the emoluments clause which should have required him to remove himself from his business dealings and disallowed him to profit finalncially from his presidency, and obstruction of justice to hide his and his family and staff’s role in everything. We now know one of the biggest factors with Russia was Trump’s 2016 and 2017 intention to build a Trump Tower in Moscow. We also know that his fmaily and associates met repeatedly with Russia during his Campaign for the Republican nomination and presidency, and that amongst other perks to Vladimir Putin, including a $40 million some-odd suite in the proposed Moscow Trump Tower and lifting of sanctions on Russia was offered. We know Russian hackers infiltrated our social media to sway the election, and it is becoming more and more clear of Trump’s role. Happily for justice, former National Security Director to Trump, Michael Flynn, and former Trump attorney and fixer Michael Cohen are singing like canaries. I say look for Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kusner to be one of the next indicted, followed by Donald Jr.Forgive me for not citing any of this right now — I will perhaps return at a later date to input links, but it is all easily found online.