I do not understand why some people have a problem with the Trump campaign being able to find people to work for it for free. It is fine for people to do all sorts of volunteer and outreach activities supporting any campaign. So why is it a problem for people to work for any campaign for free?
In fact, if we do not want people with money to have more say in politics, all campaigns must use only volunteers.
Campaigns should not be judged by the amount of money they are able to raise. If they can be judged by anything, the number of people who are willing to volunteer is a good one.
The reason why an administration can be corrupted is that a candidate needs money to run a campaign, which include money to pay campaign staff.
The more grassroots a campaign is, the more it is going to rely on volunteers. The more volunteers a campaign can recruit, the more grassroots it is. So it is a good thing that the Trump campaign is able to find people to work for it for free. I would challenge the Clinton campaign to do the same.
No. Absolutely not.
Reason No.1: She will continue the wars that cost the US government so much that the US government will get deeper into debt, the US will need more quantitative easing, and the US economy will not be able to recover. And as the US economy can not recover, Americans will be more against immigration.
Reason No.2: She will cave in to demands from the anti-immigration forces, just like Obama.
Reason No.3: She does not mean to keep her promises.
Reason No.4: The immigration reform advocates are not powerful enough to deserve her attentions.
Finally, because there are so many flaws in Hillary Clinton’s candidacy, by supporting Hillary Clinton, immigration reform advocates are inviting more people to fight against their cause. This is an even more important reason not to support Hillary Clinton.
Immigration problems can only be solved by someone who is not looking to be popular, who dare to do the right thing for the people. Both Trump and Hillary Clinton are people who want to be popular and tend to cave in. So immigration reform advocates must look to Gary Johnson and Jill Stein.
Hillary Clinton may not be herself a neocon. But she needs neocons’ support and becomes their representative as a result. In a sense, she suffers from the Stockholm syndrome, like Patty Hearst.
This is a common problem the last few Democratic Presidents shared. Because neocons are war mongers, and wars are costly and so hurt the economy and the people, the Democratic Presidents are supposed to fight neocons in the interests of the people of their own party. But because they need support from neocons (who are powerful and wealthy) to win elections, they join them instead.
In fact, the reason why neocons are powerful and wealthy is that they gain power and wealth from wars, which are authorized by the Presidents. This is the reason why the wars keep going – to keep neocons powerful and wealthy so they can continue to have control over the Presidents. It is a vicious cycle.
No. What he has just made clear in his latest immigration speech is that he will keep the same immigration policies as his predecessors.
The enforcement of unreasonable immigration laws has never worked and will never work. The only thing that can happen is he becomes even more brutal and inhumane (which I do not think he wants to) and greatly hurts the society and the economy as a result.
Dealing with immigration problems in different ways does not mean that you have to promise a pathway to citizenship to people who are out of status. In fact, if you allow people to come and go freely, a lot of people would go knowing that they can come back any time they want to. By forcing people to leave without giving them the rights to come back, you are forcing people into hiding, which makes law enforcement more difficult and hurts the normal functioning of the society.
Trump may be thinking that he is finally standing up for the American people. But when you stand up, you usually stand up against people who are powerful, not people who do not have the power to fight back.
This is just proof that Trump is indeed like what the Clinton campaign has painted him as.
Both seem to be more interested in getting the job than building a movement. Neither has very strong convictions. Both will be mediocre because neither will put up a fight for anything. For example, when it comes to wars, read this article and you will see: Why Washington Is Addicted to Perpetual War. They simply can not think outside of the box. And they will just echo what others are saying.
Trump has almost been able to hit the neocon establishment that Hillary Clinton represents quite a few times. But because he does not want to risk being unacceptable to others, he failed when he almost made it. For example, when he said Obama founded ISIS, he almost hit the neocon establishment at the right place. But then because he was not able to tell it straight to the public that Obama’s policies and actions in the Middle East created ISIS (or more precisely, the conditions for ISIS to thrive), he failed to defeat the neocon establishment outright. He leaves them unchallenged on this matter and loses the most important opportunity to defeat them.
Unfortunately, the way American elections and commerce work, people with new ideas or unconventional ideas are not appreciated. When these people write, the websites they write on do not get enough of traffic to be profitable. And people look at how profitable a website is to determine if the ideas posted there are worthy of attentions. When these people run for offices, they don’t get a lot of donations. And people look at how much donations they get to determine if their candidacy is worthy of attentions.
First of all, I want to acknowledge the Trump campaign’s enormous efforts to point out the many flaws in Hillary Clinton’s candidacy (the most recent one being “Media Orgs Donate to Clinton Foundation Then Downplay Clinton Foundation Scandal“). To be honest, I wish that I can support Trump to defeat the Clinton campaign. Trump’s fight against the Clinton campaign is a fight that is almost unwinnable because of the humongous network of interconnected elites, corporations, government organs, media organizations, etc., that is weighing down heavily on the entire population.
However, as the Clinton campaign has rightfully pointed out, Trump’s prejudice against and disrespect for many people will be a problem. The centuries old fight against racism, sexism, etc., is much longer and harder than the decades old fight against neocon. Neocon may destroy America. So will racism, sexism, etc.
It is up to every voter to decide whether to fight against neocon or racism, sexism, etc., or to fight both. But supporting one evil to defeat another evil is not desirable.
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 may be 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 her. It is somewhat dangerous for progressives to vote for her because they may get revenge from her 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 problems in immigration policies 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.