> they do nothing to indicate if what Trump said was correct.

That's right. For plans for the future, being "correct" is asking a bit too much, but we should also have some good audits or at least good details on the plans. I believe that we are quite short on audits or details for Trump's plans for the US with him as POTUS.

I've been for Trump since last fall or so, but I know we don't have nearly enough good details. But what the heck am I to do? To me, the other candidates look much worse, on details and more.

Last fall I thought that I wanted the details, but as voting citizens we nearly never get those. Sometimes politicians deliver -- JFK said we'd put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth and did. Bush 41 said that Saddam's invasion of Kuwait "would not stand", put Schwarzkopf in charge, and, as at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKi3NwLFkX4

the results were brilliant.

Obama said he would "fundamentally transform" America, the US, or some such, but not in any way I'd want.

So, sometimes I like what politicians do, but usually I don't.

For unemployment rate, I was drawing partly from some Bureau of Labor Statistics material and discussion as at

http://themusingsofthebigredcar.com/lets-cut-the-crap-unempl...

There he has a big plot of labor force participation rate. We're talking 90+ million people who could, presumably in principle, be working but now out of the labor force. If you take his judgment seriously, then the situation, to be technical, sucks. He also mentions BLS data U-6 and U-7, and I have yet to look up those and I didn't see links to them. But I believe that the official 5% unemployment rate is lying with statistics, i.e., maybe is literally true for a particular definition that may at times be an okay definition but definitely is not now.

Net, on unemployment, I don't think that the real rate, with a reasonable definition, is 5% or anywhere near that. Maybe Trump's 20% is correct or even too low. So, one hope for the economy, deficit, standard of living, etc. is to get the "labor force participation rate" up, way up.

On Trump University (TU), good to know that in NYS he claimed to be operating a university without a NYS license. So there is a way to stop misuse of university.

For the point that there wasn't anything in the TU courses couldn't find in Trump books, okay. Quite generally there isn't much of any value in education not already in books. So, that situation about has to hold for TU also.

Your references have Trump claiming his instructors are "handpicked" by him personally. Right, that seems to be a lie. I did see a video of a few guys, 2, 3, maybe a few more, who claimed to have learned some valuable material TU about how to make money in real estate. Okay, maybe a few people did. Maybe there was some content in the courses.

To me, TU looks like an example of my guess about how
Trump has done a lot of his smaller businesses: He has a broad, big picture idea, gets some people, and has them try to make the idea work. One of the keys to the idea is the Trump brand. Then the people
Trump hired charge forward.
If they make money, don't
lose big law suits, and don't
get too much bad publicity, then Trump regarded the project
as successful. Call it business. For the customers, it's buyer beware. From what I've seen of
the for-profit education
industry out there, TU seems
to fit right in. For the selling, sure, look at the famous movie scene from Glenn Garry Glenn Ross

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6Lf8GtMe4M

So, selling in business is permitted to be just like that and sometimes is. So, maybe much of the selling of TU to students was like that.

A concern: One of your video clips has Trump selling TU and to me he looks and sounds very much the same as he did in his rallies and interviews during the primaries. He's good at sounding sincere: He sounded sincere for TU but said things, e.g., "handpicked", that conflict with what was in the deposition transcript you referenced. And during the primaries he sounded similarly sincere. That's a concern -- I need to upgrade my sincerity filter.

So, instead of Trump I should have backed one of the 16 Republican candidates he beat? I liked them less than Trump -- have no reason to trust them any more than Trump. I should vote for Hillary or Bernie? They can sound sincere, too, but to me the details, such as I can find them, look a lot worse than Trump's, and I agree that Hillary is a terrible crook and should go to jail for her violations of the rules and laws about handling classified information. So, maybe I should wait for Batman, Superman, Captain America, or John Wayne? Not promising, either.

So, one reason I have on my computer as primary sources what Trump said is to have, for later, means to write critical blog posts, with the primary sources and solid references, if Trump fails to deliver on his promises. Thin soup if Trump is lying. Not a lot of recourse.

Do I know that Trump's plans for jobs, the deficit, taxes, the wall, trade negotiations, negotiations with Iran, economic growth, protecting the US from radical Islam, rebuilding the US military, etc. are solid, doable, realistic, feasible? I wish I did, but I don't. And similarly for Jeb!, Cruz, Rubio, Carly, ....

What should I do about TU, Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, etc.? It was business. If it was bad enough, then he'd be in jail.

Sure, I'd like a solid contract with a candidate for POTUS, but we don't have those yet. Lacking a solid contract, I'd like details. There are some, at a high level that don't guarantee much, at Trump's Web site. I'd like some examples of where our trade deals are bad, what good trade deals would look like, and the chances of getting good deals -- I don't have that. I'd like some really careful numbers, quarter by quarter, on the economy, budgets, taxes, revenue, deficits, interest rates, and inflation, but, again, I have no way to get those. Maybe the Fed staff can do some useful things with such macro economic modeling, but maybe they can't, either.

So, what can I do? What can any citizen or voter do? What did voters do for Ike, FDR, ..., Lincoln, ... Washington? Try to read character. And now we have what should be some advantages. Do I like our accuracy in reading character? HELL NO. Heck, I liked Romney, but recently I've concluded that he's a total turkey. How such a total turkey could have done that well in business and in MA politics I can't understand, but he looks like a turkey now.

For Trump: He's energetic. He's paying for nearly all of his campaign with his own money. Nearly any day in nearly any state, he can get 30,000 people to show up for one of his rallies -- i.e., he can build consensus and, e.g., thus get Congress to go along. He can get tens of millions of people to watch on TV and will likely do that again in the three or whatever debates with the Dem candidate -- again, he can get people to watch; he can build consensus. It appears that he wants the convention to add publcity and brand; if so, then that could help him get Congress to go along. I agree with him that the media is deliberately deceptive, disgusting, dangerous, and I'm pleased that he pushes back on them really hard -- and he's the only US high office candidate who does that. And, thus, maybe some of the newsies will actually dig into his details, plans, etc. to give us what we need but don't have now. He seems to be one heck of an effective manager: His small team did really well in the primaries. Think for a minute about the planning, details, contracts, arrangements, publicity, security, etc. for rallies for 10,000 -- 30,000 at a pop, all across the country. How the heck to do that, with a small, green staff?

Or, to me, Trump is the least bad, by a large margin, but, still, by a much larger margin, less than I wish we had and knew before we vote.

After all that, I've got my startup to work on.