(15d) Previous USA President Obama gave advise
|Hammer correctly hitting nail and not fingers|
- President Trump was right to threaten North Korea it would face consequences in case it would continue to destabilise the region and world (although it should have been the U.N. to warn North Korea as international laws, not US laws, should be enforced). Indeed, being soft sometimes encourages certain leaders to do wrong. Of course, that doesn't mean he would use nuclear weapons because also conventional weapons can destroy the side of production while ones the nukes are produced problems are much bigger;
- Further, President Obama (and Europe) was wrong not to act when Syria's Assad crossed a red line when he gassed civilians (although again the red line should have been set and enforced by the U.N. and not an individual country); the result is that Russia saw an opportunity to help Syria and thus Assad is winning the war. In my opinion, this is the worst possible scenario as he will be more powerful than before because, not only are many of Assad's opponents killed but now also Turkey is helping to destroy the one group, i.e. the Kurd, that was powerful enough to halt Assad's army while President Erdogan had an opportunity to work together with the Kurd against a common enemy and thus unite. That's why I agreed with President Trump when he ordered to bomb Syria after another gas attack although not everyone in his team agreed. Further, I think that, although President Trump wants to talk with Russia's President Putin, the latter fears more the unpredictable President Trump than he feared President Obama. In contrast, European politicians are already preparing Assad's victory, probably so they can send back the Syrian refugees where they may have to either join Assad's army or face death by torture. Don't stop evil and evil grows as happened in the 1930s before WWII. How history is repeating itself. And don't forget, Mrs Clinton, who was almost president, said she would do the same as President Trump did.
In the USA, many people voted for Mr Trump not only because all are racists but because he promised he would fight for the unemployed so they would have jobs and earn a living, even when many think this is for reasons of self-interest. Indeed, stop promoting outsourcing jobs to countries where people are underpaid with the argument that keeps the price of products low in developed countries because it doesn't; it only increases profits for companies. Further, people without job or on minimum wages don't accept the argument that products will be more expensive if they are produced locally because they can't buy them anyway as they don't earn enough.
Stop promoting tax reductions for the wealthy (although President Trump reduced those taxes) because it doesn't stimulate the general economy (although companies and not persons may receive support from governments to start a business that they may or may not have to repay) while it is expensive. Instead, put a maximum at the highest wages (e.g. profits that banks make should be used to invest in the economy, not to pay over-the-top bonuses to certain employees) while the lowest wages should be sufficiently high as this will stimulate the economy when the low earners can also buy things or go to restaurants and bars in contrast to the wealthy of whom many spend only part of their money and this mainly in exclusive and expensive places so mainly other wealthy persons while few ordinary people benefit.
Similarly in the UK where many (mainly English) voted to leave the EU. Possible reasons? A reason may be that some voted "out" because they no longer want to remortgage their house so their children can get a mortgage to buy a house of flat at prices that became unaffordable, partly because many European immigrants have well paid jobs and thus they can buy houses at prices many locals can't afford (similar now in Southern-Europe where people loose their home while foreigners buy them). Many no longer accept that their children have to move away to the capital to earn money. Still, often these were the results of policies by UK politicians while the EU had little to do with it although UK politicians often suggested the EU imposed these things (and sometimes it did). A final point is that the UK, and mainly England, is still a country that hasn't accepted it is no longer an empire whereby people in other countries do as it dictates but instead needs to work together with others. Still, I accept the argument that too much emphasis was on the French-German axis while other major countries, including the UK, were not always taken serious enough.
In summary, listen, think and try to find solutions. As Mr Obama said, voting is very important when you are interested in your country and want to change it for the better as each vote counts; thus don't suppose other people will vote as you.
But also, go in politics to try to change society if you have ideas. And if your ideas are not ready yet or mindsets are not ready yet for changes that are sometimes necessary, continue to develop these ideas, either in a political party although I think even better and as should be in a mature democracy (thus, first in the West) in movements so you're more independent (President Macron of France is an example). In future, the time may be right and you may be elected to try to convince other politicians to vote in Parliament for at least some of your ideas so they can become law.
But one day, even you will become the past as being in politics changes people and certainly at higher levels, often because they have less time to interact with ordinary people and thus they start to behave as those they meet - the example is Mr Obama who before his election as president did community work and understood the underdog; now he does fundraising and thus he meets and lectures often the very wealthy instead of the masses because a few wealthy offer as much as many normal people - although when many ordinary people are prepared to support a party or movement it indicates sufficient numbers of people may vote for that party/person during the election. Still, Mr Obama can use his influence to convince the wealthy and political establishment to do it differently, just as he did in the article I mentioned at the start although few may follow his advice as it doesn't sound exciting.