I just returned from the 24th United Nations climate change conference in Poland, where government delegates were charged with fleshing out the rules that govern the implementation of the 2015 Paris Agreement. Unfortunately, a new axis of climate-denying nations overshadowed the talks. At this year’s negotiations, the Trump administration banded together with climate pariahs Russia and Saudi Arabia to sideline climate science and protect fossil fuel interests.

The alliance of rich, emerging and poor economies that sealed the Paris climate deal is falling apart. In 2015, the world’s top two emitters, the US and China, joined with Brazil, some small island countries and the European Union, led by Germany, France and the UK, to land the agreement. But climate change politics have shifted significantly since then, with two more big tilts this week. Brazil elected a staunch and radical anti-environmentalist president, while Germany’s Angela Merkel confirmed her exit plans

Part of running a campaign is also acting the part, and actors can be pretty good at that. Celebrities can have more talent in front of audiences, generally; and they may be more apt to deal with scandals more deftly, in part because the public assumes that scandals are simply part of their lives. Reagan himself was a skilled performer who used a combination of theatrics and performance in radio and television pseudo-events to basically play the part of a president. Yet, these same useful assets may prove to be a double-edged sword because celebrity, inevitably, brings scrutiny.

China is a nation that only an idiot would want to get into a trade war with. Because  China buys everything in  immense bulk and it can easily and quickly — in mere weeks, it seems — replace imported American products with those from a dozen other trade partners: in the UK, the EU, Eastern Europe, South America, and Australia. The painful reality is that America needs China as a bulk buyer of its goods far more than China needs the U.S. as a produce supplier.

So could the president be charged with a crime? (Or, as was the case with President Richard Nixon in 1974, be named as an unindicted co-conspirator?) The official line of the Justice Department is that a sitting president cannot be charged. Many lawyers argue that the Constitution’s only relief is impeachment, a charge made by the U.S. House of Representatives which is followed by a trial in the U.S. Senate. Perhaps.

It must be noted that the overall percentage of Latinos who voted for Trump is about 26-29 percent, compared to the Cuban-American vote. This wide gap in the Latino demographic is one that has plagued both major parties as they strive to grab this much desired bloc. If Republicans can claim over half of the Cuban-American vote in a key state like Florida, is there hope yet for a stronger Latino base to lean towards the GOP? After all, as Ronald Reagan infamously quipped, “Hispanics are conservatives; they just don’t know it yet.” 

Experts have correlated the sudden uptick of hate crimes with the disconcerting rhetoric toward minorities by Donald Trump and the nationwide resurgence of white supremacist groups after Trump’s election. “The current Administration’s anti-immigrant, anti-China, and anti-Muslim rhetoric have certainly affected our Asian American and Pacific Islander communities,” civil rights and legal organization Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles said in a statement sent to the Asian Journal. 

President Trump (yes, I’m going to call him by the name this time) has picked fights with anyone he can, isolating our country against our allies, aligning him with dictatorial opponents. He wants to be appreciated like Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, asking that people pay as much attention to him as they do to a man he once denigrated as “Little Rocket Man.” At the same time, he picks a fight against our Canadian and Mexican allies, our continental partners, because he is flexing his muscles and making the point that he does not need friends.

“One trip and it’s ‘mission accomplished,’ Mr. President?” tweeted Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), adding that North Korea was still in possession of its nuclear missiles and that the promise was still vague. “North Korea is a real and present threat.  So is a dangerously naive president.”Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), also highlighting North Korea’s possession of nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles, said the U.S. was still in danger.