In practice then, the traditional governments of the past, like the result of 2016 general election implicates, will continue in the next four years to serve a microcosm of a larger promise; not the real equality of disparate groups, at least when it comes to the question of the sex of the aspirant for the highest office in the land. The difficulty of moving ahead and away from sexism, racism and associated shortcoming of truncated dreams, the challenge of separation, of having a two America, White or Black, excluding and denying dream of a huge segment of the American population, would depend on what is done and how we work and walk through the new murky waters. Women and rural residents failed to rally around a former US Senator, Secretary of State and first lady of the United States, a female politician with probably the best shot at being the first female to occupy the White House oval office, in any recent memory. America is divisive, it is separate, no matter how we like to deny this; no longer can we depend on not having America discriminate against itself, specifically one of the bests of its female population. We now have to deal with a President who included an anti-semantic message on his campaign website for the White House; a president who threw away the playbook of traditional American Political campaigns, moving to capture the White House with huge chunk support of far-right groups; a businessman who has shied away from paying his due taxes, filed bankruptcies multiple of times, mocked the disabled, admire tyrants, and disdains the rights of women, championing anti-trade and anti-immigrant policies for America. A candidate who lost the popular vote and yet still won the White House in a grand slide, with two hundred and ninety electoral college votes.
Billionaire Business Magnate Donald Trump, the deal maker, the juvenile twitter feeder, is the forty-fifth President of the United States of America. Americans, White, Black or Brown, would have to deal with the reality of the voice of the people. Corollary, the victor in the contest for 2016 White House, will have to navigate through how to bring policymakers and people together to ensure a probable nationalistic government that looks more inward as contemplated in his campaign messages; a president that disavows the current female Federal Reserve Chairman, Janet Yellen, a descendant of minority Polish Jews, a president whose male Anglo-Saxon heritage, reaffirms America's preference for an archaic political leadership arrangement that denies minorities the rights of equal citizenship; one that affirms a bigot's right to lord it over the rest of America in an information age. No longer, except an olive leaf is adopted by the incoming Anglo-Saxon President, female American citizens have to continue to endure the aviaries and proverbial assaulting behavior of the "machismo" American male against their counterparts, as demonstrated and communicated in the president-elect missive on that bus with Billy Bush. In the coming four years, women will have to deal with the existing hierarchical structure of governance, where they are expected to submit to the directives of male members of the society, because, they have lost the opportunity to put a female in the White House oval office. The reliable differences in race, religion, sexes and national origin and more, will continue to persist; the differences in the choices of the races, probably more prominent, the disparities in salaries and wages between the sexes continue unabated; and, necessary and progressive change would have to wait until another time and season. Observers of campaigns for the White House, who question the reason why a female American has not been given the keys to the White House oval office, and are quizzical about the results of the 2016 general election, now have their questions answered with the results and reality of the outcome of 2016 general election: America is a divided society with unquestionable preference for Anglo-Saxon male leaders in the White House, even when morally and financially bankrupt, and particular preference for one that is committed to shutting the doors against Muslims to America. Tonight, the glass ceiling is solidified, not shattered as anticipated or dreamed, history has failed to be made, and the negative rhetoric of the campaign season which fired up aura of separation and discrimination within the populace, are replicate of the voices to be heard in the next four years. The outstanding and astonishing victory of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, legitimizes probably, a classical scary presidency ahead, one that will send shocks waves through the world's global market; and, one that affirms that nationalism and discrimination win, when properly and well packaged in campaign messages for low information or uneducated groups in rural America, as is reminiscent of the kind of outcome of the 2016 White House oval office's contest between the Republicans and Democrats.
The remaining part of this article will make a comparison of the promises of candidate Donald Trump, the forty-fifth president-elect of the United States of America, against his former rival, candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton. To sum up, candidate Donald Trump promises to: 1) ‘Build a wall’ — and make Mexico pay for it; 2) Temporarily ban Muslims from entering the United States; 3) ‘Bring manufacturing (jobs) back” – being the greatest job president God ever created; 4) Impose tariffs on goods made in China and Mexico; 5) Renegotiate or withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership; 6). ‘Full repeal of Obamacare’ and replace it with a market-based alternative; 7) Renegotiate the Iran deal to be more favorable for America; 8) leave social security including the retirement age and benefits as they currently are; 9) Cut taxes as part of a proposed tax reform, giving the top 0.1 percent more tax cut than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined; and, 10) bomb oil assets under ISIS control. As further documented by Politifact.com, these are the top ten campaign promises of candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton: 1) For families making less than $125,000 a year, we will eliminate tuition" for in-state students at public colleges; 2) Pass comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship that keeps families together; 3) Stand up to Republican-led attacks on this landmark (health care) law—and build on its success to bring the promise of affordable health care to more people and make a ‘public option’ possible; 4) overturn the US Supreme Court landmark decision, Citizens United; 5) fight for equal pay, affordable childcare and paid family leave for women; 6) will not raise middle-income taxes; but a tax policy that puts the burden of payment on the top one percent will be instituted; 7) Say no to attacks on working families and no to bad trade deals and unfair trade practices, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership; 8) increase the federal minimum wage; 9) expanding background checks to more gun sales and the issue of second amendment rights; and 10) increase federal infrastructure funding by $275 billion over a five-year period.
Donald Trump promises appear to incite and polarize America; the needy-greedy of his campaign promises has not been laid out and critics maintain he has an obligation to flesh out the policies behind those promises if he is to win their hearts on the road ahead. As currently stands, the proposed changes to the the immigration law, to reduce influx of illegal immigrants to America, calls for substantial retooling and direction; one probably invoking a revolutionary agenda that many critics are waging continuous precipitous criticisms. Further, a promise to repeal Obamacare will endanger the introduction of workable and practical reform to the healthcare law as it stands, to afford for measurable action that could lead to further cumulative success; however, an outright repeal of the healthcare law appears as infeasible as millions of Americans already benefit from the provisions of the law; and, consider an outright scrapping of the law as a disservice or an aberration. The concept of an alternative market-based healthcare law is retrogressive, since the failure of the forces of the market, led to the initiation of the law in the first place; America once had a failed market based healthcare law before the advent of OBAMACARE. The fact that it would be difficult to muster sixty votes in the US Senate of today, even after the 2016 general election results, makes it obviously difficult at this time and as many lawmakers who worked long hours in passing and enacting OBAMACARE, are apprehensive of the speculative promise and proposal from Donald Trump. In addition, folks are terrified of disruptive trade policies that may throw the world economies into a a tailspin and chaos. A proposal to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership, may adversely impact international trade, even to the detriment of the nation's economic welfare; since retaliatory policies may ensue from countries that signed up to NAFTA or TPP in the first place. As the nation faces the risk of having a non-traditional politician in the White House oval office, who has bad-mouthed, even seasoned policymakers and allied NATO States, the choice of collaboration on international security and fighting terrorism may be in jeopardy. Many of these countries are necessarily going to introduce dynamic nationalistic alternative proposals that will put their nation ahead of any provisions of internationally signed treaty under other America's White House administrations. The question of renegotiating the content of some of these international treaties are more likely going to make even conciliatory countries under any new dispensation, question if the content and body of the newly renegotiated agreements are going to stand, considering that the existing ones are being scrapped by the rise of another US government.
Meeting America's National Security needs, by renegotiating the Iranian Nuclear deal increases the potential of restoring the status-quo against Iran before the deal with President Obama's Administration. Veteran International Policymakers speculate that a renegotiated nuclear deal may threaten international security and introduce another foreign voyeurism by the government of America. Such a renegotiation may call for once again, the exacerbation and expansion of the military-industrial complex to combat a potential resistance stand up by the country, Iran. This could be particularly dangerous for international peace; as responding to unpredictable crisis that may arise from bulking against this new policy of America. Special Operational forces that may end up being moved because of the potential balking of the nation of Iran, may not like this and may bring upon them an unusual hardship that could exacerbate the burgeoning national debt and deficits. There are going to be significant changes in America's foreign policies as Iran and other foreign countries react to America's choice to renege on an international agreement. United States has been the leading world's power, to now be in the position of reneging on international agreements may bring about new changes on the world's stage that make many apprehensive and wondering what's next.
The air is already full of warnings regarding temporary removal or banning of Muslims from entering the United States. The more likely repercussion of this kind of policy is infanticide. There are American Muslims who will fight against this type of policy and create an instability or confirmed front against a heavy-handed President attempting to push a discriminatory policy through or muscle through a policy that create the outsider mentality among some members of our populace. A misunderstanding of the place of America regarding immigrants from Muslim nations have a tendency of introducing deficiency of international trust on coalition building to confront collective enemies like the international terrorists and group of nations with intention to do harm to America. Religious discriminatory policies, or those with similar favor, are apt to make nations with democratic inclination, reconsider their position on negotiated bi-lateral agreements and advancing regimes towards democratic principles and governance. A policy like this has the potential of letting down many Islamic nations that have dedicated unique support towards fighting ISIS and international terrorism. America may loose her credibility by adopting a policy that directly confront inclusiveness of all groups and or factions within America's population.
Taking literally, the potential of building a wall against Mexico and making that nation's government pay for it, is more of a long shot. By raising tariffs and calling a nation to pay for a project that is problematic to its population or work against the interests of surrounding nations that may have benefited from former out-migration up north, may impact national security dynamics that have hitherto helped the level of stability in the whole of North America. By adopting a policy that transfers burden to a neighboring nation, based on nationalism, racism and xenophobia flairs, may introduce or compel intrinsically uncertain political dynamics that many governments across the globe may find dubious and superficial. For astute observers of foreign policies and immigration issues, a relatively ambitious policy to deny or prevent free movement of people across the globe, is a recipe for unconscionable distrust of governments and leaders; one that may speed intemperance at the United Nations. To resolve the challenges of US illegal immigration will require more than building a wall across the border of nations; nations like Mexico and Canada may pursue alternative policies that not only counteract the new policy, but create and explore alternative proposals on the basis of self-determination, national pride; and or national suffrage.
Bringing manufacturing jobs back tackles the question of disenchantment that many disenfranchised Americans in depressed regions of America feel right now. The purpose to fight unemployment by bringing back manufacturing firms that have left American shores appear a great investment in the future of America and her industries. Because billions of dollars in tax incentive write-offs may be necessary to effect this type of policy or encourage American firms abroad to come back home, it is imperative that this type of policy is not construed as punitive; rather, a two-headed sword, to encourage the nation to move forward on the issue of unemployment and to ensure that American workers are engaged, without necessarily seeming over-zealously protective of domestic economy. Some American firms may chose to come back however, others will remain reluctant, because the reason of their moving overseas has rather little to do with contemporary economic reason of higher labor cost as reason for initially moving overseas. Many firms that have left American shores have not done that to undo the promise of America to her citizens, but rather to concentrate their production processes close to their raw materials or ready markets for their products.
To resolve the challenges of fighting international terrorism is going to take more than bombing oil assets of ISIS and or, other international terrorist groups and domiciles. But to improve the current dynamics of the fleeting fight against international terrorism and afford stability, will require a new consistency and legitimate actions that do not run afoul of international laws. If every proposal in fighting international terrorism takes on the face of stealing from people, even if they are terrorist groups, then a case may be made for the old style of western banditry and high sea voyeurism that the last century saw and now distances herself from for multiple of reasons. The vision that our nation our national can fight international terrorism by violating international laws and negotiated treaties; or thumbing her nose on the rule of laws and avowed values of democratic principles. It is imperative that prior rhetoric regarding how America is going to fight terrorism under a Trump's administration, including taking oil rigs and personal properties of other nations, will open up a canker-worm regarding past US attempt to incur into other nation's domestic affairs. Our policies must not violate other people's right to their own goods just for the sake of fighting an ill that appears to have consumed our total attention, recently. How painfully would it be, if after our bombing of ISIS and their domiciles, after taking their oil or whatever assets of theirs as proposed by the incoming administration, we are still unable to win the war against international or domestic terrorism?