Trump has vowed to be tough on illegal immigration. But the fact that a presidential candidate vows to do something on immigration does not mean that he or she will do it. Just look at what Obama had promised to the immigration reform advocates during his presidential campaigns and what he actually did as a President. So now, Hillary Clinton can make all the promises she wants, people will still be skeptical: “Latino voters wonder: Which Hillary should we believe?“.
I always have the feeling that Hillary Clinton is a good saleswoman. She would say anything you want to hear just to sell herself to you. (Donald Trump maybe about as good a salesman as Hillary is a saleswoman.)
Knowing what Bill Clinton has done on immigration and Hillary Clinton’s characters, I am more worried of a Hillary Clinton presidency on immigration as well as other progressive issues. Not only that she will not keep her promises, but also she may do the opposite of what she has promised because immigration reform advocates and progressives ask for a lot for their votes and offer nothing more than their votes, and because they are powerless and can be ignored without consequences.
Bernie Sanders should have a closer look at what kind of a person Hillary Clinton is before asking his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton. It is somewhat dangerous for progressives to vote for Hillary Clinton because they may get revenge from Hillary Clinton for having fought her in the primary. Progressives might as well vote independently to avoid being abused by her. When you are beyond her control, you are less likely to be abused by her.
If there was indeed something wrong with how Melania Trump got her Green Card or she was at some point in time not “in full compliance with the immigration laws of this country”, as suggested in recent news reports such as “Gaps in Melania Trump’s immigration story raise questions“, then Donald Trump has to do something about it: divorce his wife for misleading him, change his immigration stance, or drop out of the presidential campaign.
Immigration policies directly affect the lives of millions of people and the well being of the whole country. So immigration policies can not be designed based on inaccurate information. Covering up immigration problems will leave them festering. If Donald Trump is running for president for the good of the country, he needs to find out if his wife ever had any problem with immigration laws.
Dishonesty in presidential candidates will cost the country dearly and so is unacceptable.
[CNN has been great recently. They have published the article about Trump by Ivan Eland that I have shared earlier. Another great thing they have done is to hold a town hall for the Libertarian Party presidential candidates. If you have missed it out, here is “5 takeaways from CNN’s Libertarian Party town hall“. The next great thing CNN will be doing is to hold a town hall for the Green Party presidential candidates.]
Even if you do not intend to vote for the Libertarian Party candidates or the Green Party candidates, it is still worth the time to follow them and see what they have to say. Hopefully, when enough of people understand their positions and would like to vote for them, American politics will change.
Voting based on self-interests, not principles, will not ever get America out of partisan politics. Partisan politics is what is keeping America from moving on.
Although I do not know where libertarianism came from and I know that it probably exists all over the world all the time, I first got to know about it in the US, and I find it to be the most American thing of all.
As I understand it, libertarianism is the believe that people should not interfere with each other’s freedom and this is out of respect for each other’s rights.
A lot of time, people interfere with each other because they want something for themselves and they want others to give up some of their rights so they can have what they want. This is a main source of conflicts around the world.
Sometimes, it is hard to figure out who should have the rights to do what, as in the case of a restaurant wanting to not accept gay customers. If the restaurant is allowed to ban gay customers, it sends a message to the society that it is OK to discriminate against gays. If it is not allowed to ban gay customers, the society is interfering with the restaurant’s business and may cause the restaurant to lose businesses because some customers may not like to dine with gays in the same restaurant. Moreover, if the restaurant is the only one in a neighborhood, some people may not get to dine out in the neighborhood whether the restaurant is allowed to ban gay customers or not. (Is it easier to learn to accept gays or to stop being gay?)
Most of the time though, it is possible to accommodate all sides, as in case of the South China Sea disputes, a solution to which I have made a proposal for in an earlier post. That proposal was rooted in respect for the rights of all parties involved to continue exercising whatever rights they have had up until recent years. If the status quo needs to be changed, all parties involved should be consulted and arguments for change need to be presented if any party is not willing to accept the change.
When there is an impasse, it is more likely that a party wants something for itself that hurts the interests of others. Then is the time to remind everyone involved that all parties should be respected.
Being a president of a country requires a lot more than the ability to self-censor for political correctness. This article published on CNN tells us the more important issue that has been overshadowed by the discussion on Trump’s political correctness: Actually, Trump has a point.
Take a look at the parade of elites who have come out against Trump in recent days: Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, Meg Whitman, etc. These people have always been successful and rich no matter what. But while they have been doing well, a lot of Americans have not. So why should Americans who have not been doing well follow their lead and try to keep the status quo?
The question now comes down to why the mainstream media is giving the elites so much more air time.
The Trump campaign is not only up against the elites, who have most of the wealth in the country, but also up against the mainstream media.
What is worse, the mainstream media that the Trump campaign is up against is not only powerful, but also deceitful and manipulative, as made clear in this article: Russia, Trump and Manafort: A Test of the News.
Granted, Trump himself, like a lot of Republicans, is prejudiced and immature. But the mainstream media is trying to make him look much worse than that.
Neocon’s support among non-Americans is very strong and is a major reason why neocon is so strong in America. There are many people around the world who think that America should be their savior. When faced with oppression within their countries or regions, they do not know what to do. They can only think of asking for help from someone stronger who may want to help them out. That is why a lot of people around the world as well as people who have immigrated to the US from other countries think that the United States should interfere in any way possible, including militarily, in other countries’ and other regions’ affairs. America being tough physically is what they hope.
What these people do not know is that America’s greatest strength is not a strong military. Relying on a strong military to solve the world’s problems is the thinking of the old world, a world where there are no rules, where there is no rule based order, where disputes are resolved through force.
Americans can not let people with old world thinking to lead them back to the dark age.
When you are standing with neocons, you are trying to take America and the whole world back to the dark age.
Mr. Khizr Khan’s support for Hillary Clinton inspired me to write this post. I have nothing against Muslims or Muslims’ rights. I am just not worrying about political correctness. I am more worried about the direction America and the world are heading.
The Philippines had negotiated with China over their South China Sea disputes for many years before going to court. It is very obvious that bilateral negotiations have not been working for them. So why is China still insisting on having bilateral negotiations rather than accepting arbitration?
The answer is very simple. Arbitration results are beyond China’s control.
Bilateral negotiations sound like a good way to resolve disputes when compared to armed conflicts. But bilateral negotiations work only when both parties in the negotiations are willing to compromise. They do not work when one party is not willing to compromise and insists that something is not negotiable.
When bilateral negotiations fail, that is when arbitration is needed.
Another problem with China’s insistence that bilateral negotiation is the only way to resolve disputes is that while negotiations are ongoing, China does not stop activities in the disputed territory that may need to stop because, as long as no results come from the negotiations, China still has “indisputable sovereignty” over the disputed territory. So if bilateral negotiations never come to a conclusion, China can do whatever in the disputed territory forever. That will give China the incentive to never compromise in the negotiations and let them fail.
Rule based orders are often not accepted by the strong. The strong believes that they can get what they want with their strength and should always be in control as long as they are strong. A rule based order will challenge that. It makes the strong feel vulnerable, which is especially unacceptable to them.
However, a rule based order protects the weak and keeps the peace. Without a rule based order, armed conflicts can break out, because there are often more than one party who are confident of their strength or want to test or prove their strength. This is the reason why there have been armed conflicts throughout history. The reason for rule based orders to come into existence is to avoid armed conflicts.
We should not go back to the time when there is no rule to rule the world, when armed conflicts are the way to settle disputes, just because a strong nation does not want to accept a rule based order, as suggested by some.
By the way, bilateral negotiation works only if both parties are sincere in resolving their disputes and so are willing to compromise. It does not work when one party insists that there are certain things that are not negotiable. If bilateral negotiations always work, we will not need any legal system.
Last time, they used a Black man. This time, they use a woman. History is made again and again. But has it helped anyone? If the election of a Black man did not help African Americans, what make you think that the election of a woman will help women?
Maybe issues that concern women will now be paid attention to. But why are these issues still there after all these years since Hillary Clinton became the First Lady? What will a woman head of state be able to do to make a difference? Have Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Park Geun-hye been able to do anything for women? If they have, they are not known for being champions of women’s rights.
If you still can not imagine how women’s rights will not be championed during Hillary Clinton’s presidency, take a look at how the Democratic Party establishment is treating Progressives. The Democratic Party establishment has made a lot of promises to Progressives. But now, before any vote is even cast, it does not even bother to do anything substantial to woo them. Everything that has been done has been to attract the establishment of the Republican Party – the polar opposite of Progressives. If it is somehow possible for Progressives to stay in the same tent with the Democratic Party establishment, how is it possible for Progressives to stay in the same tent with the Republican Party establishment – the one that represents everything that Progressives have been fighting against?
Thanks to the recent ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration, we now have a better idea on how to settle the dispute between China and the Philippines over some part of the South China Sea.
If I understand what is said in the article “This tiny islet in the South China Sea is now officially a “rock”—and the implications are global” correctly, China gets to keep the islands and do whatever with them, while the Philippines get to fish and explore and extract natural resources within its EEZ. China can not stop the Philippines from doing what she is allowed to do according to the UNCLOS. The Philippines can not evict China from the islands that China is occupying or forbid China from doing whatever with those islands. China only has 12 nautical miles around each of those islands for her own use, and can not stop ships from passing near those islands or stop airplanes from flying near those islands as long as the ships and airplanes are more than 12 nautical miles away from those islands.
If the dispute is settled this way, China can not complain that she has been forced to lose some of her territories, while the Philippines still gets to use her EEZ, and Taiwan can just relax – no one is trying to force Taiwan out of Taiping Island (Itu Aba).