Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trump is coarse and apolitical. That's why he is unpopular among the media.
Among all accusation, I find the label "racist" exceptional hilarious. He is strongly opposed to illegal immigrants and wants them all deported - which is automatically interpreted as being racist, and people seem to support that. I don't understand, if I enter the US illegally and get caught, what will happen? The US government will deport me. Will it be considered racist in doing that? So what's wrong with Trump's proposal?
I don't defend his suggestion to ban all Muslims from entering the country. That's overreaction.
Hilary Clinton's popularity among the Hispanics and black people is mostly confusing, considering she is indeed a racist. She even calls handicapped children "retards". Apparently American media doesn't talk about that much.
You don't have to believe the story, but it seems it is not the only source.
I guess American people like hypocrites more than the loud mouth jerks. It is not the US politics forum, but I hope the Americans can live with their choice.
Most of the Establishment elite aren't happy with the current level of immigration. They want to increase legal immigration further but it is extremely difficult, politically speaking, to do this. That is why most support illegal immigration since that is a way of circumventing the current level of immigration. Reducing legal immigration in the US is the third rail of politics and anyone who suggests this is considered a racist and beyond the pale. Illegal immigration was rapidly becoming a third rail until Trump moved the Overton Window to the point people now discuss restricting legal immigration. In any case, it makes it much more difficult to increase immigration levels and the Establishment is extremely concerned by this. The Establishment doesn't really have strong ethnic/racial nationalistic feelings so they aren't really concerned by a very high level of immigration but other people especially White Americans don't feel this way. In any case, Trump is despised because he made it far more comfortable for immigration reductionists to iterate their views.
Most of the Establishment elite aren't happy with the current level of immigration. They want to increase legal immigration further but it is extremely difficult, politically speaking, to do this. That is why most support illegal immigration since that is a way of circumventing the current level of immigration. Reducing legal immigration in the US is the third rail of politics and anyone who suggests this is considered a racist and beyond the pale. Illegal immigration was rapidly becoming a third rail until Trump moved the Overton Window to the point people now discuss restricting legal immigration. In any case, it makes it much more difficult to increase immigration levels and the Establishment is extremely concerned by this. The Establishment doesn't really have strong ethnic/racial nationalistic feelings so they aren't really concerned by a very high level of immigration but other people especially White Americans don't feel this way. In any case, Trump is despised because he made it far more comfortable for immigration reductionists to iterate their views.
As a former student in the US, I can attest to the difficulty of becoming a PR in the US. I have many friends who graduated from top notch US universities in science and engineering who end up struggling between 5 to 10 years after obtaining their PhDs for a green card. This is how hostile the US immigration policy is. On the other hand, 90% of newly issued green cards are family based - which means most of those people don't really have the skills the US need. So the system is totally broken, not to mention unfair. It is bad for the US and the immigrants.
I also know quite a few immigrants in the US who support Trump precisely due to this reason: because your current system is more friendly to low skilled illegal immigrants than to high skilled legal ones - how is that possible? This is driven by nothing but politics because the large Hispanic population in general would want a more relaxed policy toward illegal immigrants, while the highly educated Indians and Chinese are left to hang.
In Canada, our immigration policy seems to show a lot more flexibility. The ministry of immigrant and multicultural have significant power in determining what policies are right and can make changes in a matter of months. On the other hand, immigrating is a bargaining chip or leverage for politicians to win votes in the US, regardless of the need of the country - and this has to stop. Canada receives more immigrants than the US on a per capita basis but immigration was rarely a hot election issue. One reason is we don't face the same illegal issue as the US because Mexico isn't our neighbour of course, but for decades, the US fails miserably to change, not to mention revamp its dysfunctional policy that doesn't really work for anyone.
The US policy is confusing and inconsistent: what kind of immigrants do you want? It says something on paper and does something completely different, to the extent of indulging people violating US laws while punishing those who obey it. One reason why Trump is supported by some is that he says what many people dare not. His hostile attitude toward illegal immigration shouldn't be construed as racism, not out of respect for the American law, and despite the fact the GOP has the reputation of being anti-immigration, they are actually opposed to "illegal immigration" and have consisted pushed for making it easier for highly skilled STEM graduates to stay and work in the US. For the democrats, it is always about wooing the Hispanic voters by being "friendly" to illegal immigration - and that's interpreted as liberal minded and progressive?
What a broken system. Trump may be rude and arrogant (not more so than Hilary Clinton in fact), but labling him as a racist just because he strongly hates people who enter and stay in the US illegally is simply wrong.
Japan's mistake was offending too many countries including the large China and US and too brutal when invading. Long before World War Two, it tried to invade Ming China by first invading Korea, the guy who started the war was an idiot.
The European legacy can linger in Asia a bit because they killed but killed less people, did not drop germ bombs and did not use humans for experiments. The UK and US won the World War Two so they have global influence and Japan lost the ability to greatly influence others. Too terrible acts led to it still being disliked by some after many years.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,470,414 times
Reputation: 12187
Japan believed - accurately - that is lacked the natural resources to win a war against the USA or some European power. They wanted to invade and modernize their mainland neighbors to form a region strong enough to fend off the West. Problem was Japan was not liked in their mainland territory and the West could support rebellions there to stretch Japan too thin. Japan seems reckless in hindsight by at the time Western Europeans were conquering whole continents and seemed unstoppable.
Problem with Japan is it is too greedy. It had no time to digest the newly conquered territory and then it started on another project.
Between 1894 -1931, it acquired Taiwan and Pescadores (Peng Hu islands), the Kurile Island Chain, Southern Sakhalin, Korea and Manchuria. After taking Manchuria, in fact the chief strategist Kenji Ishihara advised against any further military adventure in futile.
If Japan could quit after 1931 and spend decades afterward to build up within its empire, it may be a different story. In fact, except Manchuria where they tried to migrate en masse, there were not too many Japanese in other newly acquired parts of its empire, i.e. Southern Sakhalin.
Even after taking Manchuria, the international opinion was still not against Japan.
The pivotal point came in January 1932 when Japanese air force bombed Shanghai. A burned baby sitting alone on a deserted platform at Shanghai's railway station appeared on the cover of Life Magazine.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Then the tide of opinion started to turn.
Interesting to see the change.
Learning from the west during Menji, hating and fighting the west during early Showa, losing wars and then allied with the west.
Japan is an aggressive island nation like the British but much more xenophobic. Plus, all asains hate each other. They needed resources just like british. They say Toyatomi's plan was to kill all the samurai from the sengoku jidai so that japan would be more peaceful and easier to rule.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
