He spoke at a rally Norfolk, Va in front of the USS Wisconsin. He promised to improve the condition and reform policies to better the lives of veterans. He said he "wanted to supplement the program," and "fire the corrupt and incompetent VA executives". He said he wanted to appropriately address the conditions of those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wants to use the VA in order to address the conditions of existing veterans.
I'm not a big fan of Donald Trump, but there are problems which our veterans face. The suffer from illnesses such as PTSD or other physical or mental or emotional injuries, and not a lot of them get help. The number of unemployed or homeless veterans has risen. There need to be solutions for these issues because these are the young orl old men and women risking their lives to defend our rights.
Source:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/01/donald-trump-reveals-plan-reform-veterans-affairs-healthcare/
Monday, November 2, 2015
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Does Bernie Hate Babies??!
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/us/politics/bernie-sanders-doesnt-kiss-babies-that-a-problem.html?ref=politics
This article focuses on the lack of interaction between Bernie Sanders and the voting public of the United States of America. It includes multiple examples where Bernie quickly exits after any speeches or rallies without talking to any of the audience one on one, and if he does interact with the people, it'd feel "rushed" and would last for just 30 seconds. I agree with the author of this article when he says that this is not the best for Bernie's campaign, since connecting and engaging with the public outside of gatherings is extremely important.
The article includes that the previous democratic campaigns, of Bill Clinton and current President Barack Obama, took advantage of this face-to-face connection that Bernie isn't. I think that embracing the public, through simple things like waving to those who stay to see him after a speech or better yet talking for even 15 seconds to them would help him out tremendously. If people are able to connect with him on a personal level, they would see him more as a human being, they can see that he's also like them. It would also perhaps make those who are unsure of who to vote for decide on who if they get to talk to Bernie up close.
This article focuses on the lack of interaction between Bernie Sanders and the voting public of the United States of America. It includes multiple examples where Bernie quickly exits after any speeches or rallies without talking to any of the audience one on one, and if he does interact with the people, it'd feel "rushed" and would last for just 30 seconds. I agree with the author of this article when he says that this is not the best for Bernie's campaign, since connecting and engaging with the public outside of gatherings is extremely important.
The article includes that the previous democratic campaigns, of Bill Clinton and current President Barack Obama, took advantage of this face-to-face connection that Bernie isn't. I think that embracing the public, through simple things like waving to those who stay to see him after a speech or better yet talking for even 15 seconds to them would help him out tremendously. If people are able to connect with him on a personal level, they would see him more as a human being, they can see that he's also like them. It would also perhaps make those who are unsure of who to vote for decide on who if they get to talk to Bernie up close.
Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio Grow Apart as Their Ambitions Expand
According to this article, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, both candidates of Cuban descent, have built a relationship throughout their years as senators. Ted Cruz was elected senator in 2012 and during that time he sought guidance as well as an endorsement from Rubio. As a result of this, Mr. Cruz built a relationship with Mr. Rubio that is now slowly being weakened. Cruz and Rubio are now both staying out of each other's way in a Republican race in which many of the candidates seem to be verbally attacking each other. Both Rubio and Cruz would like to become the first Latino president and would like to see the race come down to the both of them. Therefore, Rubio and Cruz have agreed to attempt to take out other candidates from the GOP nomination. However, there is still a lot of time left in the primaries so maybe their agreement will be broken.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-grow-apart-as-their-ambitions-expand.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/us/politics/ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-grow-apart-as-their-ambitions-expand.html?ref=politics
Paul Singer, Influential Billionaire, Throws Support to Marco Rubio for President
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/us/politics/paul-singer-influential-billionaire-throws-support-to-marco-rubio-for-president.html?ref=politics
Many experts believe Marco Rubio is the Republican candidate with the best shot at knocking of Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. With counterpart Jeb Bush now falling behind in revenue, Mr. Singer's support for Rubio will help increase his networking to the American people. Although, Hillary Clinton is surging ahead in polls, Rubio's Hispanic appeal will give him the slight edge against other Republican candidates. Mr. Singer previously has helped Mitt Romney get elected as the Republican nominee for presidency. I think with Mr. Singer's support Rubio can make the push to surge ahead of Donald Trump in the elections. Jeb Bush's poll numbers are declining and both opponents were lobbying for New York mastermind Singer to throw his support behind them. This new turn of events will help hype the Republican platform and make things more heated as Election day dawns closer.
Many experts believe Marco Rubio is the Republican candidate with the best shot at knocking of Democratic hopeful Hillary Clinton. With counterpart Jeb Bush now falling behind in revenue, Mr. Singer's support for Rubio will help increase his networking to the American people. Although, Hillary Clinton is surging ahead in polls, Rubio's Hispanic appeal will give him the slight edge against other Republican candidates. Mr. Singer previously has helped Mitt Romney get elected as the Republican nominee for presidency. I think with Mr. Singer's support Rubio can make the push to surge ahead of Donald Trump in the elections. Jeb Bush's poll numbers are declining and both opponents were lobbying for New York mastermind Singer to throw his support behind them. This new turn of events will help hype the Republican platform and make things more heated as Election day dawns closer.
Hillary Clinton to call for ending racial profiling and disparities in crack cocaine sentences
In this article, Hilary Clinton lays down her plans to stop racial profiling in the criminal justice system and to eliminate the distinction between crack cocaine possession and powder cocaine possession. I agree with Clinton's stance to end racism in America and think that it is unfair for blacks to be targeted as suspects for criminal activity. However, in her support for putting body cameras on every police officer, I do not agree with her for many reasons. One, is that to but body on every police officer is extremely expensive, so where would she find the money to sponsor all of those. Second, body cameras can easily be broken intentionally or accidentally, which would be futile if a controversial case were to happen that day. Third, the position of the camera may not capture the most important evidence that may show whether or not the police or the civilian was at fault. Despite this issue, I think that Hilary Clinton is right in all her plans to stop racism in America.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-call-for-elimination-of-racial-profiling-and-end-of-crack-cocaine-distinction/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/hillary-clinton-to-call-for-elimination-of-racial-profiling-and-end-of-crack-cocaine-distinction/
Saturday, October 31, 2015
Jeb Bush: 'It's Not About Performance. It's About Leadership'
Jeb Bush flew to New Hampshire after the debate on Wednesday. He spoke about the state of his campaign there, claiming that he still had a lot of money and his campaign is still functioning. Bush also spoke about how being president was more than just being able to speak well in public. He addressed his various stances on issues. There was a variety of feedback: some felt that he did a better job than he did at the debate, others felt that he wasn't ready for the White House.
When he spoke about how his actions were worth more than his rhetoric, I believe he was targeting Trump who has been leading the race. I do not believe that Jeb Bush's campaign is faring well despite his constant denial. If he fails to ignite the crowd in a place where his family name is celebrated, I don't think he has a chance of winning.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/30/453072602/jeb-bush-is-on-the-road-battling-rumors-of-a-sputtering-campaign
Sanders expresses reservations about Obama’s deployment of troops to Syria
This article discusses both Bernie Sanders' reaction to Obama wanting to slightly increase our military presence in Syria and his views on international affairs. Obama wants to deploy a few troops in the Middle East while also expressing concern of our involvement in the Syrian civil war. Sanders, just like Obama, wants to aid those countries battling the Islamic State in the region. However, he does not believe military force should be our first resort, but rather our last. There are ways to address international affairs that don't involve dispatching troops.
I agree with Sanders. Our long history of involving ourselves in foreign conflict through military action has not been beneficial. We have lost countless Americans to the Iraq War, and to what avail? We returned 3 years later in the Iraqi Civil War. There are more diplomatic ways to address conflict rather than perpetuating ongoing strife in these countries. Furthermore, it is important that we focus on the issues of our own country before trying, and failing, to solve issues in others. As Bernie stated, military force should be our last resort and we should not completely immerse ourselves in foreign affairs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/sanders-expresses-reservations-about-obamas-deployment-of-troops-to-syria/
I agree with Sanders. Our long history of involving ourselves in foreign conflict through military action has not been beneficial. We have lost countless Americans to the Iraq War, and to what avail? We returned 3 years later in the Iraqi Civil War. There are more diplomatic ways to address conflict rather than perpetuating ongoing strife in these countries. Furthermore, it is important that we focus on the issues of our own country before trying, and failing, to solve issues in others. As Bernie stated, military force should be our last resort and we should not completely immerse ourselves in foreign affairs.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/30/sanders-expresses-reservations-about-obamas-deployment-of-troops-to-syria/
Friday, October 30, 2015
Ben Carson had extensive relationship to dietary supplement company despite denial
During the debate this Wednesday, Ben Carson was questioned for his support and relationship with a dietary supplement company, Mannatech, that is said to cure cancer and autism. Carson denied this accusation and claimed that he may have done a couple of paid speeches that do not matter because he does many paid speeches for many companies. He claimed that it was "absurd" to call it a relationship.
Even though this is what Carson claims, there is proof that he has been taking their products for over a decade. The last speech for them was in 2013. Ben Carson also credited the products by Mannatech and claimed that they are the reason his cancer symptoms are disappearing.
The fact that Carson did not mention any of the above information really makes me question his integrity and honesty. Those are qualities any president should have and he is lacking. If he is going to hide something like that, who says he won't hide anything more important that the people of this country would deserve to know. If Ben Carson had significant results from this product, why would he deny his extensive use of their product to begin with? Should he not be congratulating them and promoting them? Dr. Carson has a lot to explain since this news came out and I am interested to see how he will respond.
Even though this is what Carson claims, there is proof that he has been taking their products for over a decade. The last speech for them was in 2013. Ben Carson also credited the products by Mannatech and claimed that they are the reason his cancer symptoms are disappearing.
The fact that Carson did not mention any of the above information really makes me question his integrity and honesty. Those are qualities any president should have and he is lacking. If he is going to hide something like that, who says he won't hide anything more important that the people of this country would deserve to know. If Ben Carson had significant results from this product, why would he deny his extensive use of their product to begin with? Should he not be congratulating them and promoting them? Dr. Carson has a lot to explain since this news came out and I am interested to see how he will respond.
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Why Not Cruz?- Howard Tai
The article argues that Marco Rubio is likely going to be the Republican nominee and only acknowledges Ted Cruz as a legitimate opponent. He asserts that Trump and Carson will never win the nomination because of their lack of support from the establishment. He ultimately argues that Rubio will succeed over Cruz, listing several reasons why Cruz will not be able to prevail against Rubio. Although I would say Rubio is definitely a contender, I wouldn't rule out Trump like the author did. The establishment remains divided, despite Bush's dropping numbers. John Kasich also hasn't shown indications that he plans on dropping out, which fragments the establishment even more. If they do not rally behind Rubio, I still think there is a chance Trump could win. Also, even though I think Rubio would prevail over Cruz, I disagree with the reasons that the author presents as to why Rubio would be more successful than Cruz. I think the main reason Rubio will garner more support than Cruz is because Rubio is more moderate, whereas Cruz leans extremely to the right. As we are observing with the Democratic Primary, the more moderate candidate tends to be more popular and more successful. Thus, I think this will be the main reason why Rubio will gain more support than Cruz in the election.
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/why-not-cruz/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&mtrref=undefined&assetType=opinion&_r=1&mtrref=douthat.blogs.nytimes.com&assetType=opi
http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/28/why-not-cruz/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs®ion=Body&mtrref=undefined&assetType=opinion&_r=1&mtrref=douthat.blogs.nytimes.com&assetType=opi
Sunday, October 25, 2015
Jeb Bush to drop out
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/24/jeb-bush-expresses-despair-about-toxic-tone-of-campaign/
With Jeb Bush dropping out we see the end of the establishment - Of course there are other politicians in the race, but Jeb Bush was the leading candidate who had any experience in the government. I'm upset, not only because Americans for Prosperity represented him in the election simulation, but because it means that people have lost so much faith in the government they prefer Donald Tump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. While Jeb Bush dropping out is not yet confirmed, he hinted at it when he said "I've got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that." His statement that the race has been more of a reality television show where everyone attempts to insult one another is true. Instead of talking about real policy issues the candidates spend time trading insults about appearances and mannerisms. We need someone like Jeb, because if this is what Americans want, then we need soemone strong enough to counteract him.
With Jeb Bush dropping out we see the end of the establishment - Of course there are other politicians in the race, but Jeb Bush was the leading candidate who had any experience in the government. I'm upset, not only because Americans for Prosperity represented him in the election simulation, but because it means that people have lost so much faith in the government they prefer Donald Tump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina. While Jeb Bush dropping out is not yet confirmed, he hinted at it when he said "I've got a lot of really cool things I could do other than sit around, being miserable, listening to people demonize me and me feeling compelled to demonize them. That is a joke. Elect Trump if you want that." His statement that the race has been more of a reality television show where everyone attempts to insult one another is true. Instead of talking about real policy issues the candidates spend time trading insults about appearances and mannerisms. We need someone like Jeb, because if this is what Americans want, then we need soemone strong enough to counteract him.
Good news for GOP elites: Trump's not winning Iowa anymore. Bad news: Ben Carson is.
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/24/9605230/ben-carson-trump-polls
According to two recent polls by Quinnipiac and Bloomberg, Ben Carson has been leading fellow Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump by just under 10 percent. The so-called "soft-spoken" and "low energy" candidate seems to be surging Trump by small margins; however, Trump remains in the lead in a majority of national polls, suggesting that Carson has yet to completely outrun Trump.
What interested me most about this article was its latter point: that Carson winning the evangelical vote was central to him winning the Iowa caucuses. According to the cited Bloomberg poll, Carson has amassed a third of the evangelical vote - more than any other candidate has - and the article has suggested that the wild allegations Carson has made (for instance, that gun control helped lead to the Holocaust, or that a Muslim should not be the United States president) have found favor and are consistent with the views of the evangelical vote - and that his incendiary lines might even help him.
I find the article's view to be absurd, and I really do hope that these statements are more exaggeration than fact. I can't bring myself to fathom that any religious party would support such statements made by Carson - and I find it harder to believe that such a party would have sufficient power to make a perceivable impact come election day. It troubles me that any one group would give Carson's words credence - and, even more, it troubles me that many voters cannot divorce religion from capability.
According to two recent polls by Quinnipiac and Bloomberg, Ben Carson has been leading fellow Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump by just under 10 percent. The so-called "soft-spoken" and "low energy" candidate seems to be surging Trump by small margins; however, Trump remains in the lead in a majority of national polls, suggesting that Carson has yet to completely outrun Trump.
What interested me most about this article was its latter point: that Carson winning the evangelical vote was central to him winning the Iowa caucuses. According to the cited Bloomberg poll, Carson has amassed a third of the evangelical vote - more than any other candidate has - and the article has suggested that the wild allegations Carson has made (for instance, that gun control helped lead to the Holocaust, or that a Muslim should not be the United States president) have found favor and are consistent with the views of the evangelical vote - and that his incendiary lines might even help him.
I find the article's view to be absurd, and I really do hope that these statements are more exaggeration than fact. I can't bring myself to fathom that any religious party would support such statements made by Carson - and I find it harder to believe that such a party would have sufficient power to make a perceivable impact come election day. It troubles me that any one group would give Carson's words credence - and, even more, it troubles me that many voters cannot divorce religion from capability.
Struggling Jeb Bush Downsizes Campaign
Jeb Bush is downsizing his campaign because his campaign seems to be in big trouble. He wants to remain competitive in the presidential election and primaries. Jeb's campaign has cut 40% from the payroll by the end of the first week. The Bush campaign is also downsizing the amount of workers and cutting the pay for the workers he already has. He is third place in New Hampshire and fifth place in Iowa.
When Jeb Bush entered the GOP campaigns, the analysts though he would be leading in teh Republican campaigns. But he hasn't been that successful despite his efforts. The Bush campaign is surviving fro survival, and they know that their chances are growing bleaker.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/23/struggling-jeb-bush-downsizes-campaign-cuts-payroll-40-percent.html
When Jeb Bush entered the GOP campaigns, the analysts though he would be leading in teh Republican campaigns. But he hasn't been that successful despite his efforts. The Bush campaign is surviving fro survival, and they know that their chances are growing bleaker.
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/23/struggling-jeb-bush-downsizes-campaign-cuts-payroll-40-percent.html
Girl Gone Wild: Hillary's $350 Billion " Free" College Plan
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2015/10/26/girl-gone-wild-hillarys-350-billion-free-college-plan-n2070449
This article talks about how essentially Hillary Clinton wants to work to make a college education free. The article says she is selling herself as a boring politician who will get things done. She uses this to get the younger voters but what will happen to everyone after they graduate. According to statistics there may not be enough jobs available for almost everyone until 2022. She is also saying that everyone should go to college because without it you can not be successful. The college plan will hurt the economy and does not guarantee jobs when people come out of college. A better plan would be for Hilary to teach you that you do not need a college degree to be successful. Just working hard and learning life skills will do.
I think Hilary is trying her best to secure the younger votes. But can her policy really be done and benefit. I also disagree with her pushing people to attend college. Maybe college is not for everyone. And you can be successful without attending college. Look at Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. They were successful and they did not get a college degree. How do you guys feel about this?
Carson on Abortion
This article reveals republican candidate, Ben Carson's, stance on the touchy subject of abortion. He says that "I would not be in favor of killing a baby because the baby came about in that way," citing "the many stories of people who have led very useful lives who were the result of rape or incest." Carson believes that their should be a ban on abortion in all aspects, regardless of the situation.
This view of Carson is absurd to me, because I believe that abortion should be an option for women to get to do at free will. While some feel that abortion is terrible, I think that it is something that should be readily available to a woman for any reason, like if she doesn't feel ready to bear a child, not just rape or incest. For those that disagree, I just want to say that it's a woman's body and that the government should have no control over what a woman wants to do, because it affects her and her only. Ben Carson of all people should have no say on this topic because it has nothing to do with him.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/25/ben-carson-calls-for-ban-on-abortion-in-all-circumstances/
This view of Carson is absurd to me, because I believe that abortion should be an option for women to get to do at free will. While some feel that abortion is terrible, I think that it is something that should be readily available to a woman for any reason, like if she doesn't feel ready to bear a child, not just rape or incest. For those that disagree, I just want to say that it's a woman's body and that the government should have no control over what a woman wants to do, because it affects her and her only. Ben Carson of all people should have no say on this topic because it has nothing to do with him.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/25/ben-carson-calls-for-ban-on-abortion-in-all-circumstances/
Trump attacks Carson, says he lacks energy necessary to be president
Donald Trump has now started his attack on Ben Carson, contrary to his previous remarks that he would only fights back under the criticism of others. Furthermore Trump has stated, " Carson could not aggressively tackle trade in the way Trump has pledged to do and said the country needs a "special leader" with "tremendous energy" as president." While reading this article I was wondering what Trump meant by having "tremendous energy" as president and why did he chose to insult Carson this way, especially when he states, "We informed Ben, but he was sleeping." I found Trump's recent onslaught of attacks to be interesting because perhaps Trump may be beginning to get nervous at his now dropping in the polls to second place and is finally seeing Carson as a real possible threat. It is difficult to imagine though that Trump might lose his confidence since even when he first saw himself lose first place in Iowa, Trump was in denial by stating that he disagreed with the results of the Quinnipiac University and Des Moines Register/ Bloomberg Politics polls as he claimed that both the polling groups do not like him at all. In the current interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Trump finally states that he accepts the polls' results, but is "surprised and does not understand them."
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/donald-trump-miami-rally/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/donald-trump-miami-rally/index.html
Carson's stance on abortion
This article summarizes Ben carson's opposition against abortion, even in cases of rape or incest. He drew a comparison between a woman terminating her pregnancy to slavery:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/25/ben-carson-likens-abortion-to-slavery-wants-to-see-roe-v-wade-overturned/
"...During slavery, a lot of the slave owners thought that they had the right to do whatever they wanted to that slave, anything that they chose to do. And what if the abolitionists had said: 'You know, I don't believe in slavery. I think it's wrong, but you guys do whatever you want to do'? Where would we be?"I'm not sure what Carson is trying to emphasize here, but I believe that a woman should be given the right to decide whether or not she wants to terminate her pregnancy. Of course, there should be limits placed on abortion, such that, women should not terminate their pregnancy under circumstances where she is capable of providing for her and her baby. However, when faced with destitution, I think that both parents should decide upon this issue of abortion, since they lack the means to even provide for themselves.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/25/ben-carson-likens-abortion-to-slavery-wants-to-see-roe-v-wade-overturned/
Sanders: Hillary's wrong on gay marriage law
Hillary Clinton in 1996 voted for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA said that the federal government will not recognize gay marriage. Sanders was a member of the House at this time and claimed that he voted against the bill because everyone should be able to love whoever they want.
Clinton is defending her vote for the act by saying she was preventing there to be an amendment in the future. She feels that if that act did not pass, there would have been more extreme issues. Sanders disapproves on her actions and her possible stances against gay marriage.
I agree with Bernie Sanders that the vote in 1996 should not have happened. It does change Clinton's appearance as a democratic candidate for me. If this act was not passed then maybe the progress and legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states would have happened sooner. All the harassments of people during this time would not have happened. Her vote helped push us further away from progress. I feel like no matter what she said in response to Sanders comment, it will not be strong enough to redeem herself.
Clinton is defending her vote for the act by saying she was preventing there to be an amendment in the future. She feels that if that act did not pass, there would have been more extreme issues. Sanders disapproves on her actions and her possible stances against gay marriage.
I agree with Bernie Sanders that the vote in 1996 should not have happened. It does change Clinton's appearance as a democratic candidate for me. If this act was not passed then maybe the progress and legalization of gay marriage in all 50 states would have happened sooner. All the harassments of people during this time would not have happened. Her vote helped push us further away from progress. I feel like no matter what she said in response to Sanders comment, it will not be strong enough to redeem herself.
Donald Trump Attacks Ben Carson, and Highlights His Religion
Donald Trump Attacks Ben Carson, and Highlights His Religion
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/25/donald-trump-attacks-ben-carson-and-highlights-his-religion/
Donald Trump says he doesn't understand how Ben Carson surpassed him in the polls in recent Iowa polls released this week (which was by nine percent). It seems that he is quite taken aback, as he bitterly takes jabs at Ben Carson's religion and "low energy levels". He seems to be in a state of true confusion, and that shows that he really thought and assumed that he would win. I think Trump is being a sore loser when targeting Ben Carson's religion and comparing it to his own, as if trying to gain at least a little more votes from the citizens. Donald Trump doesn't seem like the confident individual that he tried to present himself as. He had previously seemed to emphasize that he has nothing to lose, as he'll always have a place to return (his business). However, Trump seems to be showing his unstable state, as he is constantly trying to influence the people to go against other politicians and comparing them to himself. He had previously criticized George Bush's handling of the 9/11 attack. I'd have to agree that Presbyterians are more populous than those of Ben Carson's religion Seventh-Day Adventist, so it may, in some way, give Trump some more support. However, stating this outright and saying things like, "I mean, Seventh-Day Adventist, I don't know about, I just don't know about," seems almost insulting to all those who are part of that religion. This insult once again reveals Trump's probable attitude if perhaps being president, as he will most likely close his ears and eyes to all but his own ideas and beliefs.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/25/donald-trump-attacks-ben-carson-and-highlights-his-religion/
Donald Trump says he doesn't understand how Ben Carson surpassed him in the polls in recent Iowa polls released this week (which was by nine percent). It seems that he is quite taken aback, as he bitterly takes jabs at Ben Carson's religion and "low energy levels". He seems to be in a state of true confusion, and that shows that he really thought and assumed that he would win. I think Trump is being a sore loser when targeting Ben Carson's religion and comparing it to his own, as if trying to gain at least a little more votes from the citizens. Donald Trump doesn't seem like the confident individual that he tried to present himself as. He had previously seemed to emphasize that he has nothing to lose, as he'll always have a place to return (his business). However, Trump seems to be showing his unstable state, as he is constantly trying to influence the people to go against other politicians and comparing them to himself. He had previously criticized George Bush's handling of the 9/11 attack. I'd have to agree that Presbyterians are more populous than those of Ben Carson's religion Seventh-Day Adventist, so it may, in some way, give Trump some more support. However, stating this outright and saying things like, "I mean, Seventh-Day Adventist, I don't know about, I just don't know about," seems almost insulting to all those who are part of that religion. This insult once again reveals Trump's probable attitude if perhaps being president, as he will most likely close his ears and eyes to all but his own ideas and beliefs.
Trump and Carson, "Friendly" Rivals
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/carson-and-trump-are-dominating-but-their-chummy-rapport-turns-cool/2015/10/24/6dc2018a-79e8-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
This article discusses the relationship between republicans Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the two outsiders in the presidential race. It mentions how the two different candidates came from two different backgrounds. However, it also goes on to mention how these two were actually very similar to each other, almost like two kindred spirits. Both show off their successes, and both are dominating the other republicans in the presidential race. According to the article, both of them have a grand total of over 50% of the GOP votes, much to the surprise and disbelief of the "real" candidates. But as the race goes on, both the candidates will have to face off against each other instead. According to the article, this was already made apparent when Trump started to attack Carson, after finding out that Carson was beating Trump in the polls in Iowa. Trump was stated to have said "Carson is super low energy, we need tremendous energy," and also said that Carson would not be able to create jobs, and be successful at negotiations. He also singled out Carson's Seventh-Day Adventist faith, trying to make people doubt his religious beliefs.
This article, actually surprised me in terms of whats going on in the presidential race. I never expected that these two men would have had a fairly good relationship throughout the race. Both came from different backgrounds, and both were successful in vastly different ways. The only thing I was not surprised about was that they are going to start attacking each other very soon. But I was especially shocked to see the two people who are not legitimate politicians be the dominant forces in the race. To me, the fact that these two "outsiders" are beating out the "real" candidates says two things. 1: People are losing faith in the government, and the politicians, and they are hoping for a fresh new start with a new president, and 2: People are idiots. The fact that the candidates with actual political experience are losing tells me that people don't want another politician. They want someone that have no ties to, and probably unaffected by, current political affairs to become president. They want someone else with different types of experience to become the president, which in this case, is either a neurosurgeon, or a businessman. However, this also shows that most people are idiots, by not voting for people with actual political experience. Both have made very controversial statements throughout the race, and have also insulted various ethnic groups and religions. Trump pretty much lost the support of most, if not all of the immigrants, and Carson also made very infuriating remarks about Muslims. These two people also would have no idea on how to be a successful president. While Trump is very rich and successful, he has no feasible plan on how to carry out his policies. As for Carson, just because he knows how to handle a scalpel does not mean that he knows how to lead a country. In my honest opinion, having either of these two men as president would make America the laughingstock of the world.
This article discusses the relationship between republicans Ben Carson and Donald Trump, the two outsiders in the presidential race. It mentions how the two different candidates came from two different backgrounds. However, it also goes on to mention how these two were actually very similar to each other, almost like two kindred spirits. Both show off their successes, and both are dominating the other republicans in the presidential race. According to the article, both of them have a grand total of over 50% of the GOP votes, much to the surprise and disbelief of the "real" candidates. But as the race goes on, both the candidates will have to face off against each other instead. According to the article, this was already made apparent when Trump started to attack Carson, after finding out that Carson was beating Trump in the polls in Iowa. Trump was stated to have said "Carson is super low energy, we need tremendous energy," and also said that Carson would not be able to create jobs, and be successful at negotiations. He also singled out Carson's Seventh-Day Adventist faith, trying to make people doubt his religious beliefs.
This article, actually surprised me in terms of whats going on in the presidential race. I never expected that these two men would have had a fairly good relationship throughout the race. Both came from different backgrounds, and both were successful in vastly different ways. The only thing I was not surprised about was that they are going to start attacking each other very soon. But I was especially shocked to see the two people who are not legitimate politicians be the dominant forces in the race. To me, the fact that these two "outsiders" are beating out the "real" candidates says two things. 1: People are losing faith in the government, and the politicians, and they are hoping for a fresh new start with a new president, and 2: People are idiots. The fact that the candidates with actual political experience are losing tells me that people don't want another politician. They want someone that have no ties to, and probably unaffected by, current political affairs to become president. They want someone else with different types of experience to become the president, which in this case, is either a neurosurgeon, or a businessman. However, this also shows that most people are idiots, by not voting for people with actual political experience. Both have made very controversial statements throughout the race, and have also insulted various ethnic groups and religions. Trump pretty much lost the support of most, if not all of the immigrants, and Carson also made very infuriating remarks about Muslims. These two people also would have no idea on how to be a successful president. While Trump is very rich and successful, he has no feasible plan on how to carry out his policies. As for Carson, just because he knows how to handle a scalpel does not mean that he knows how to lead a country. In my honest opinion, having either of these two men as president would make America the laughingstock of the world.
The Silent Killers
Trump might get down by silent voters, it seems.
In a recent poll, Donald Trump and Ben Carson were tied in Iowa and Trump was left baffled by the results. He said the crowds were tremendously enthusiastic at the latest rally he led, with the same tremendously great feeling he felt in other state rallies. This is a clear indication of how little the elites actually represent: the activists and campaigners come out to rally but when it's put to the polls, it says a different story.
It may be those voting specialists and some communalists that change the course of Trump's lead. Those silent killers number in large amounts, and with enough joining the force, it could spell the end of the Trump show.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-dont-understand-iowa/
In a recent poll, Donald Trump and Ben Carson were tied in Iowa and Trump was left baffled by the results. He said the crowds were tremendously enthusiastic at the latest rally he led, with the same tremendously great feeling he felt in other state rallies. This is a clear indication of how little the elites actually represent: the activists and campaigners come out to rally but when it's put to the polls, it says a different story.
It may be those voting specialists and some communalists that change the course of Trump's lead. Those silent killers number in large amounts, and with enough joining the force, it could spell the end of the Trump show.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-i-dont-understand-iowa/
Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders Attack in Iowa, but Targets Diverge
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/25/us/politics/in-iowa-bill-clinton-denounces-hit-strategy.html?ref=politics&_r=0
This article talks about the race for the Democratic ticket for presidency and how the hopefuls are beginning to attack each other. I think Bernie Sanders' approach in Iowa is a smart strategy. In 2008 when people believed Obama was going to lose, it was was Iowa that the caucus turned in his favor and he came out victor. Bernie reminded Iowans that they can do the same again. Hillary's ethos on women and the ability for them will definitely get her votes. Martin O'Malley the side horse in the race continues to attack both his rivals and attacked them on their policies towards gun control. I think if Sander's continues to have funds build he can take many more shots at Hillary and tighten the polls. With candidates beginning to attack and publicize the negatives of their opposition, it will be fun to see who says something or does something that will swing the pendulum of voters in their favor.
This article talks about the race for the Democratic ticket for presidency and how the hopefuls are beginning to attack each other. I think Bernie Sanders' approach in Iowa is a smart strategy. In 2008 when people believed Obama was going to lose, it was was Iowa that the caucus turned in his favor and he came out victor. Bernie reminded Iowans that they can do the same again. Hillary's ethos on women and the ability for them will definitely get her votes. Martin O'Malley the side horse in the race continues to attack both his rivals and attacked them on their policies towards gun control. I think if Sander's continues to have funds build he can take many more shots at Hillary and tighten the polls. With candidates beginning to attack and publicize the negatives of their opposition, it will be fun to see who says something or does something that will swing the pendulum of voters in their favor.
Fiorina needs next debate to reignite her campaign
After a recent slide at the poll strategists agree about the importance of a strong performance during the upcoming October 28 debate. Fiorina has twice benefited from well-received debate showings. According to The Hill her campaign took in about 1.5 million in donations following her September debate performance. GOP strategist, Ron Bonjean, says, "shes largely faded away from the national conversation because shes not taking on Trump in a controversial way or trying to grab the headlines." Lately she has been trying to put a foundation of support in some states which has caused this reduction in the polls.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/257949-fiorina-needs-next-debate-to-jump-start-her-campaign
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/257949-fiorina-needs-next-debate-to-jump-start-her-campaign
Trump: 'I will be a great unifier'
In an interview Trump was asked if his presidency would result in an era of bipartisanship. He responded by saying that he would be a great unifier for our country. He spoke about the House Select Committee on Benghazi's questioning of Clinton. He saw the hearing as "very partisan" which "hurts both parties" and "hurts the country." I do agree that the current partisanship does hurt the country and we need a president that can be supported by conservatives and liberals. I don't think Trump will be the person for this job. He has criticized politicians from his own party and from the Demoratic party. He said that the country is divided and there is a hatred he has never seen before, which he can fix. If Trump believes he could have a bipartisan presidency, why is he attacking everyone? If anything comes of him running, it will be a shared dislike between liberals and conservatives.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-democrats-republicans-bipartisanship-great-unifier/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/25/politics/donald-trump-democrats-republicans-bipartisanship-great-unifier/index.html
Bernie Sanders takes on a more aggressive approach against Clinton
At the Democratic Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Iowa Saturday night, Bernie Sanders showed the crowd that he is really closing in on his approach against Clinton as a response to her recent rise in the polls and the approval she got at the first Democratic debate. He began responding piece by piece to each of her actions throughout her political career, explaining exactly what was wrong with them and why his views on each issue were the right ones, despite being unpopular at the time. He performed the same analysis on Bill Clinton's actions while in office.
The article makes it seem like because Sanders is disadvantaged by Biden's choice not to run and Clinton's revitalized campaign, he is beginning to attack her more directly and campaign more passionately than ever. His new approach now includes an echoing of President Obama's campaign strategies during the 2008 election, something he recently implied he would not do. In fact, it seems both Clinton and Sanders are taking some elements of Obama's past campaign tactics and adding them to their own.
I don't know that a more aggressive approach against Clinton would be advantageous for Sanders. I think one of Clinton's advantages has been her more calm and collected strategy, and at this point, aggressive criticism against her might make the public think that Sanders is trying too hard to put her down. I've supported Sanders up to this point on a lot of his policies because they are clear and reasonable, and I think if he begins to attack Clinton too much now it might actually take away from his policies and paint him in a more negative light. Furthermore, the accusations and criticism he brings against Clinton are based on policies she supported from decades ago--if he's going to point out something he believes she did that was wrong, he should point to something more recent.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-iowa-215133
The article makes it seem like because Sanders is disadvantaged by Biden's choice not to run and Clinton's revitalized campaign, he is beginning to attack her more directly and campaign more passionately than ever. His new approach now includes an echoing of President Obama's campaign strategies during the 2008 election, something he recently implied he would not do. In fact, it seems both Clinton and Sanders are taking some elements of Obama's past campaign tactics and adding them to their own.
I don't know that a more aggressive approach against Clinton would be advantageous for Sanders. I think one of Clinton's advantages has been her more calm and collected strategy, and at this point, aggressive criticism against her might make the public think that Sanders is trying too hard to put her down. I've supported Sanders up to this point on a lot of his policies because they are clear and reasonable, and I think if he begins to attack Clinton too much now it might actually take away from his policies and paint him in a more negative light. Furthermore, the accusations and criticism he brings against Clinton are based on policies she supported from decades ago--if he's going to point out something he believes she did that was wrong, he should point to something more recent.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/clinton-iowa-215133
Soft Spoken, sharp tongued, Ben Carson
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/ben-carson-trump-energy-215137
Ben Carson defends himself against Trump's accusation that he is :super low energy" yet the title of this article should really reflect a continuation of Ben Carson's defense against abortion, gun control, and foreign policy
Carson believes that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. I would have to agree to a certain extent "...the mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be looking to terminate the baby,” however he has to put himself in the shows of a woman who is young and vulnerable. In the cases there is a huge chance where the mother may die if she gives birth to the child has to be put into consideration if she had gotten pregnant against her will.
Ben Carson defends himself against Trump's accusation that he is :super low energy" yet the title of this article should really reflect a continuation of Ben Carson's defense against abortion, gun control, and foreign policy
Carson believes that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape or incest. I would have to agree to a certain extent "...the mother should not believe that the baby is her enemy and should not be looking to terminate the baby,” however he has to put himself in the shows of a woman who is young and vulnerable. In the cases there is a huge chance where the mother may die if she gives birth to the child has to be put into consideration if she had gotten pregnant against her will.
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Jeb Bush Expresses Despair About Toxic Tone of Campaign
After cutting salaries and slashing staff positions at his Miami Headquarters, Jeb Bush has began to criticize the presidential race. Bush believes that the GOP presidential primaries have become too focused on candidates bashing each other. In a town hall in South Carolina, Mr. Bush said that if you want people to demonize others you should vote for Donald Trump. He also went on to say that he would rather not be running for the GOP nomination if this election is going to be about candidates bashing each other. I agree with what Mr. Bush has to say about the GOP presidential primaries. They cannot become too focused on candidates bashing each other because then topics such as taxing policies and immigration will not get the attention that they deserve.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/24/jeb-bush-expresses-despair-about-toxic-tone-of-campaign/
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/24/jeb-bush-expresses-despair-about-toxic-tone-of-campaign/
Trump tees off on Carson, pollsters at Miami golf club rally
Generally, any article written about Trump is biased against him, whether they are pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. He has estranged himself from any political allies, and now, Ben Carson is facing the brunt of his insults. The basis of Trump's call against Carson was because a poll made by Quinnipiac University's researchers determined that Carson had a huge lead ahead of Trump in Iowa, and Trump decides outright to deny that as the truth. In fact, he says, "I don't believe those polls, by the way, because both of those pollsters don't like me". This is so ridiculous a statement, much like many ridiculous statements he's made in the past. Just because somebody doesn't like him (and many don't) doesn't mean that numbers can be forged in a poll to show a lie. Polls aren't always accurate, but what do the researchers benefit from with lying to the public about poll numbers? Even if Carson wins Iowa, his campaign is still small and unpopular, despite his poll popularity. It's almost a guarantee that he won't be the GOP candidate for 2016. Trump's campaign is also losing momentum, as his venue in Miami, Florida turned out less supporters than expected. His golf course is an oasis for the rich, with his Trump coat of arms on garbage cans (ironic, and yet atypical of him to decide that his name deserves a coat of arms). He also made sure ahead of time to keep the reporters from Univision out, and only let his passionate (rich) supporters in. It seems like even before he wins the primary, Trump is already building walls.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trump-attacks-carson-pollsters-215128
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trump-attacks-carson-pollsters-215128
Bush campaign downsizes in the face of Trump strength
This article discusses how Jeb Bush is downsizing his campaign by slashing budgets and laying off campaign staff, although he denies that it is foreshadowing his dropout of the primary election. In the face of Trump's firm position in the polls and among the nation as a candidate, he states that he is adjusting his campaign so that he may stand strong before Trump.
I think it's strange that Bush and his team state that they will ensure Bush is the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election, yet they are shrinking their campaign. With about two weeks left until the primaries, it will require a miracle for Bush to be on par with Trump and Carson with less effort than the campaign had originally allocated for the cause. If all the current candidates remain, it is unlikely that Bush will win since the majority of voters are spread out among less popular candidates. Nevertheless, if those candidates decide to dropout then Bush surely has a fair chance at winning. I don't think Bush will be dropping out as he says himself, he is refocusing efforts to gain support in states such as New Hampshire. However, I believe reducing his campaign efforts by 45% will not help.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-campaign-downsizes-in-the-face-of-trump-strength/2015/10/23/4908181e-79a9-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
I think it's strange that Bush and his team state that they will ensure Bush is the Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election, yet they are shrinking their campaign. With about two weeks left until the primaries, it will require a miracle for Bush to be on par with Trump and Carson with less effort than the campaign had originally allocated for the cause. If all the current candidates remain, it is unlikely that Bush will win since the majority of voters are spread out among less popular candidates. Nevertheless, if those candidates decide to dropout then Bush surely has a fair chance at winning. I don't think Bush will be dropping out as he says himself, he is refocusing efforts to gain support in states such as New Hampshire. However, I believe reducing his campaign efforts by 45% will not help.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bush-campaign-downsizes-in-the-face-of-trump-strength/2015/10/23/4908181e-79a9-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
Donald Trump says he would consider closing down some mosques in the U.S.
In this article, Trump states that he would consider closing mosques in the U.S to make sure Muslims do not pose a threat to American security. Even though, I believe that ISIS is a dangerous organization that needs to be stopped, I don't agree with Trump that closing of mosques is the answer because ISIS is run by a few radical Muslims who do represent the moral character of all Muslims. Therefore, I do not think that innocent Muslims in the United States should be punished and not allowed to practice their religion in response to the bad behavior of others. However, if discovered that a mosque is being used as place for plotting and storing of weapons, I think that governmental action is needed to shut down these radical Muslims for security reasons.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/21/donald-trump-says-he-would-consider-closing-down-some-mosques-in-the-u-s/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/10/21/donald-trump-says-he-would-consider-closing-down-some-mosques-in-the-u-s/
Joe Biden Concludes There’s No Time for a 2016 Run
Joe Biden, whom many pundits assumed will eventually run a bid for President, has finally announced that he will not run for president due to various reasons including that there is little time to fundraise and finance his campaign if he were to run. I agree with Joe Biden that it is indeed too late if he were to declare that he will run for president now. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders seem to have passionate supporters who will not vote for Biden if he did choose to run. In addition, I believe that his announcement is good for him too because now he doesn't have to worry about the media frenzy predicting if he will run for president and can focus on his job as the Vice President as the Obama Administration enters its last year in office. Biden's decision will have an immense effect on Democratic Polls in my opinion. Prior to his announcement, he was attaining 10-15% of votes and it will be interesting to see if his votes go to either Clinton or Sanders.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/us/joe-biden-concludes-theres-no-time-for-a-2016-run.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
- Dilpreet Singh
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/us/joe-biden-concludes-theres-no-time-for-a-2016-run.html?referer=https://www.google.com/
- Dilpreet Singh
Should Bush Drop Out And Endorse Rubio?
Although Bush started off this election season at the top of the game, he has gone nowhere but downwards in his campaigning efforts and reception. Most noticeably, the article states that "the campaign is downsizing and cutting salaries in order to reduce its burn rate". Clearly, Bush is not doing as well as he used to be doing in the polls and can't seem to pull himself out of this down-trending spiral.
The article is implying that since Bush is losing support rather than gaining it, at this point in the election, he may be better off dropping out and supporting someone else with a largely similar view on varying issues: Rubio. I believe that this may be a good proposition to consider if Bush does not want someone like Trump winning the primaries. A point that the article made that led me to concur with the decision of Bush turning his support over to Rubio is that: "Rubio has the exact same policy positions as Bush — very conservative views on abortion and foreign policy, a shared passion for deficit-increasing tax cuts, and a moderate stance on immigration".
Rubio, who is cited as performing better in polls than Bush against Clinton, is seemingly gaining momentum whilst Bush is burning out of it. Personally, I think that this may be a good decision for Bush. He's not really getting anywhere with his campaign and instead of having someone (Trump) who shares conflicting views with him take the win, he can instead direct his support and sponsors towards Rubio, but I think that the sooner he decides the better it will be for both parties.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9366669/jeb-bush-should-drop-out
The article is implying that since Bush is losing support rather than gaining it, at this point in the election, he may be better off dropping out and supporting someone else with a largely similar view on varying issues: Rubio. I believe that this may be a good proposition to consider if Bush does not want someone like Trump winning the primaries. A point that the article made that led me to concur with the decision of Bush turning his support over to Rubio is that: "Rubio has the exact same policy positions as Bush — very conservative views on abortion and foreign policy, a shared passion for deficit-increasing tax cuts, and a moderate stance on immigration".
Rubio, who is cited as performing better in polls than Bush against Clinton, is seemingly gaining momentum whilst Bush is burning out of it. Personally, I think that this may be a good decision for Bush. He's not really getting anywhere with his campaign and instead of having someone (Trump) who shares conflicting views with him take the win, he can instead direct his support and sponsors towards Rubio, but I think that the sooner he decides the better it will be for both parties.
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/21/9366669/jeb-bush-should-drop-out
Trump on His Lost Lead in Iowa: Polls 'Are Wrong'
Donald Trump, upon losing his lead in Iowa according to new polls, said "I honestly believe those polls are wrong", even though he has been constantly citing the polls throughout this race to show how much everyone loves him. Trump's hypocrisy is amusing to watch, and I hope that this will have a ripple effect, lowering his polling scores in other states too. While I don't believe that this one time being second in the polls will have a huge effect, it may make voters slightly less likely to choose Trump. Trump, according to the article, now has a new favorite candidate to attack, Ben Carson, because he has taken Trump's spot int he Iowa polls. Previously Trump has focused his attacks on Jeb Bush, saying that Bush has little energy, now he is using the same insults on Carson, hoping to make Carson falter like Bush is faltering now. Even though it seems a bit unlikely, I hope that this is a precursor for further losses for Trump.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/24/trump_on_his_lost_lead_in_iowa_polls_are_wrong_128542.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/24/trump_on_his_lost_lead_in_iowa_polls_are_wrong_128542.html
Rubio Relying On Secret Donors To Finance Ad Blitz
http://www.nationaljournal.com/s/91284/rubio-relying-secret-donors-finance-ad-blitz?mref=landing-list-bottom
According to the article, Marco Rubio is now the first presidential candidate to benefit from a social welfare group. About a month ago, Conservative Solutions Project announced a new advertisement worth almost 6 million dollars featuring Marco Rubio advocating to continue America's greatness. Because social welfare groups are able to hide their donors, no one knows who these specific supporters of Rubio are. This situation leads to great controversy because critics argue that people should be able to know who contributed to a campaign and who receives the money. In fact most Republicans support full disclosure as stated in the article. The issue in the end is that because the donors are hidden, no one knows if one person is paying for everything and also Americans are not informed where the money comes from. I personally do not think disclosure is necessary. I think that the candidates should be able to get money from anywhere even if it is not disclosed as long as they don't use illegal methods. As long as money is not squandered, then this issue should not be very prevalent. At the end of the day, money will only go so far in electing a candidate. It can't buy popularity, social composure and the ideals and stances on issues that are the difference makers in generating votes.
According to the article, Marco Rubio is now the first presidential candidate to benefit from a social welfare group. About a month ago, Conservative Solutions Project announced a new advertisement worth almost 6 million dollars featuring Marco Rubio advocating to continue America's greatness. Because social welfare groups are able to hide their donors, no one knows who these specific supporters of Rubio are. This situation leads to great controversy because critics argue that people should be able to know who contributed to a campaign and who receives the money. In fact most Republicans support full disclosure as stated in the article. The issue in the end is that because the donors are hidden, no one knows if one person is paying for everything and also Americans are not informed where the money comes from. I personally do not think disclosure is necessary. I think that the candidates should be able to get money from anywhere even if it is not disclosed as long as they don't use illegal methods. As long as money is not squandered, then this issue should not be very prevalent. At the end of the day, money will only go so far in electing a candidate. It can't buy popularity, social composure and the ideals and stances on issues that are the difference makers in generating votes.
Friday, October 23, 2015
Why Biden Didn't Run, By The Numbers
This article attempts to speculate why Biden chose not to run for the Democratic nomination. The article is focused on the concrete evidence to why Biden chose not to run: he lacks support compared to Sanders and Clinton and he lacks the money to run. The article compares each candidate based on their popularity and their money.
I think that the article is limiting Biden's decision to only a couple sources. I could see how these were some of the reasons that Biden chose not to run. However, I think Biden's choice not to run was more than just popularity or money; the article admits that Biden's approval rating is higher than Clinton's and the example of how Sanders made a considerable amount of money over the summer.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450571546/why-biden-didnt-run-by-the-numbers
I think that the article is limiting Biden's decision to only a couple sources. I could see how these were some of the reasons that Biden chose not to run. However, I think Biden's choice not to run was more than just popularity or money; the article admits that Biden's approval rating is higher than Clinton's and the example of how Sanders made a considerable amount of money over the summer.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/21/450571546/why-biden-didnt-run-by-the-numbers
The Insiders: Bush, Kasich and Rubio Are Stronger Than You Think
The author argues that despite Trump's popularity in the polls, he really has no chance of winning the Republican nomination. He also asserts that establishment candidates, Bush, Kasich, and Rubio, are much more likely to emerge victorious in the primaries. He brings up the point that past Republican nominees all contrast sharply with Trump and he has no real political experience. However, it is obvious that the Republican Party is falling apart and the political system is broken. Thus, I think Trump definitely has a strong chance of winning, since he is someone who doesn't think or act like our current politicians. Additionally, the blue-collar faction of the Republican Party rallies around Trump while the white-collar faction remains split between the big establishment candidates. However, if more candidates drop out and the establishment can rally behind one candidate, Trump will definitely face much stronger competition. But, as of now, I believe Trump's chances of winning the Republican primary are very potent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/21/the-insiders-bush-kasich-and-rubio-are-stronger-than-you-think/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/21/the-insiders-bush-kasich-and-rubio-are-stronger-than-you-think/
Monday, October 19, 2015
Republican candidates appeal to religious conservatives
Republican candidates appeal to religious conservatives
A half a dozen Republicans spoke to religious conservatives who can determine the candidates for the primaries by a few more votes in one direction or the other."It's time to bring God back to our country," said Ben Carson.
They talked about the opposition to gay marriage to abortion, and from the support for Israel to the fight against ISIS.
They each talked about conservative issues, and how religion is influential in life.
For more info,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2015/10/18/prestonwood-baptist-trump-carson-fiorina-carson-bush-cruz-huckabee-santorum/74175226/
Sunday, October 18, 2015
Sanders Plans to Explain "Democratic Socialism"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/18/sanders-planning-major-speech-on-democratic-socialism-he-tells-iowa-supporters/?postshare=2361445207585625
Nowadays, the word Socialism is often synonymous with Marxism and Communism. Bernie Sanders, a so called "democratic socialist" says he is preparing a major speech to explain exactly what "democratic socialism" is. Although he admits that the term makes some people "very, very nervous" but Sanders policies are not those of classic socialist ideas. Rather, Sanders views are those of your stereotypical liberal, expansion of Social Security, Single-Payer health care, family leave, free tuition, etc. Sanders plans to explain his views and the concept of "democratic socialism" and that maybe it's not such a bad thing that people believe it to be
Nowadays, the word Socialism is often synonymous with Marxism and Communism. Bernie Sanders, a so called "democratic socialist" says he is preparing a major speech to explain exactly what "democratic socialism" is. Although he admits that the term makes some people "very, very nervous" but Sanders policies are not those of classic socialist ideas. Rather, Sanders views are those of your stereotypical liberal, expansion of Social Security, Single-Payer health care, family leave, free tuition, etc. Sanders plans to explain his views and the concept of "democratic socialism" and that maybe it's not such a bad thing that people believe it to be
GOP Elite's Secret Plan to Expel Donald Trump and Ben Carson.
http://townhall.com/columnists/katiekieffer/2015/10/19/gop-elites-secret-plan-to-expel-donald-trump-and-ben-carson-n2067142
This article talks about how the GOP people rewrite rules so the person they want to be in the running for president will be . In this case they are tryin to get rid of Donald Trump and Ben Carson. I disagree with this because it won't help them just like the article says and a democratic president will be chosen again. I hope they would learn from previous experience and let things take its course but we will see what happens.
Mexican Immigrant Supports Trump's Proposal of Building a Wall
Trump has made some quite offensive remarks about Mexicans: They're [Mexicans] bringing drugs, they're bringing crimes, they're rapists, and some I assume are good people". It's ironic and extremely alarming to learn that a Mexican immigrant would support Donald trump's candidacy, even after he expressed his derogatory opinions about Mexicans.
Apparently, the reason this Mexican immigrant supports trump is because she firmly believes that he is a patriot, and that he will 'make America great again'. She also mentioned that it took her ten years to officially become a U.S. citizen, which I believe is the reason behind her endorsement of trump. Because she has endured and overcame the struggles of becoming a American, she believes that all immigrants should be obligated to do so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/immigrant-explains-her-support-for-trump-2015-8
Apparently, the reason this Mexican immigrant supports trump is because she firmly believes that he is a patriot, and that he will 'make America great again'. She also mentioned that it took her ten years to officially become a U.S. citizen, which I believe is the reason behind her endorsement of trump. Because she has endured and overcame the struggles of becoming a American, she believes that all immigrants should be obligated to do so.
http://www.businessinsider.com/immigrant-explains-her-support-for-trump-2015-8
Retirees’ Futures Hinge on Candidates’ Plans for Social Security
After hearing a personal account of a senior citizen's struggling on living off of social security, it is easy to see why we need it. The problem with social security is how it is said to go bankrupt by 2040. If that really is true, it brings up the idea of why are we paying for social security when we will not even be able to receive it when it is our time.
The idea of social security is great to me. The thought to have money put away for those senior citizens who need it sounds helpful and needed. If there becomes a way to make it available to everyone when they are older then I would agree that it is necessary.
I disagree with the republicans to extend the age of retirement. I cannot picture that just because life expectancy is extended, the retirement age should go with it. Just because life expectancy increases does not mean the ability of someone that age increases also. They are still senior citizens and they need help from the government and the democrats seem to be the only people that are realizing that.
The idea of social security is great to me. The thought to have money put away for those senior citizens who need it sounds helpful and needed. If there becomes a way to make it available to everyone when they are older then I would agree that it is necessary.
I disagree with the republicans to extend the age of retirement. I cannot picture that just because life expectancy is extended, the retirement age should go with it. Just because life expectancy increases does not mean the ability of someone that age increases also. They are still senior citizens and they need help from the government and the democrats seem to be the only people that are realizing that.
Sanders Supports Tax Hike for Family Leave
Sanders is supporting a 0.2% payroll tax to finance family leave. This new tax would be imposed on all workers. The new tax will allow workers to get up to 66% of their salaries for up to 12 weeks. Sanders said "But it would mean that we would join the rest of the industrialized world nod make sure that when a mom has a baby, she can, in fact, stay home with that baby for three months rather than go back to work at the end of one week." I think that an extended family leave is a great idea that should be implemented because there are many families that can't afford to have the mother not work for a few months. There are also many people who look down on women who go back to work right away and on women who decide to stay home. This extended leave will be a good compromise and mothers won't feel bad about leaving their babies. Although this is a good idea, if Sanders becomes president, taxes shouldn't be raised for every good idea that comes around .
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/bernie-sanders-payroll-tax-hike-family-leave/index.html
Jeb Bush has 'grave doubts' about Trump as Commander in Chief
In this article, Jeb Bush criticizes Donald Trump by stating that he will not be able to handle the responsibility and the many issues that the president will have to face. "He's not taking the responsibility, the possibility of being president of the United States really seriously. For him, it looks as though he's an actor playing a role of the candidate for president. Not boning up on the issues, not having a broad sense of the responsibilities of what it is to be a president," Bush also argues that Trump's responses to certain issues such as ISIS, show his lack of understanding the severity of taking on the role of president and that he is unlikely to win the presidential nomination. I agree that Trump still does not appear to be taking the idea of becoming the president seriously and that Trump doesn't really seem to grasp the number of concerns not just on foreign policy and gun control that the president will have to handle. When Bush states that he has little confidence in Trump's ability to appropriately handle America's nuclear weapons," I think the thought of Trump as president handling America's nuclear weapons would be something to quite think about.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-foreign-policy/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/politics/donald-trump-jeb-bush-foreign-policy/
Hillary Clinton Bets on Future With Spending Spree to Build Campaign Infrastructure
Hillary Clinton, the current Secretary of State under President Barack Obama, has invested a substantial amount of money into her campaign. Mrs. Clinton, who ran for presidency in 2008, has already spent twice as much as any other presidential candidate. She has also put millions of dollars into advertising. The reason behind Mrs. Clinton's investments are so that she could overwhelm the other candidates running for the Democratic nomination. After her loss in the 2008, Mrs. Clinton may have learned a few lessons and may now be applying them to her current campaign in order to get an advantage over the other candidates. Also, it seems as if Mrs. Clinton already believes that she has won the Democratic nomination.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/filings-reveal-hillary-clinton-leads-money-race.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Trump: Why People Might Hold Bush Responsible For 9/11
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2015/10/18/trump-triples-down-on-george-w-bushs-responsibility-for-911/
In this article, Donald Trump attacks Bush because of how 9/11 happened during his time in office. He said that while he doesn't blame the former president, he can still think of three reasons as to why some people might hold him responsible. Trump had cited: Bush's apparently weak immigration laws, lack of communication between the FBI, National Security Council, and the CIA, and the failure to act despite knowing of the attack in advance. So what would have Trump done if he was the president at the time? He stated that with his strict immigration laws, the terrorists would have had a tough time getting in to the country, and that he would have made sure that the three agencies were communicating with each other. In response to this, George Bush's brother and current presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, argued that the former president "Kept us safe."
Although the things Trump says are usually illogical and silly, this time he did make some good points. It is fairly reasonable to hold Bush responsible because the Bush administration was in general disarray. The government seemingly looked the other way despite knowing that an attack was likely. I also have to disagree with Jeb Bush's argument of how his brother kept the Americans safe after the attack. It is well known that the former president's response to the attack was to invade Iraq, using it as an excuse to wage war. If he truly did keep us safe, then he would not have sent soldiers to their deaths. However, this is not to say that I agree with Trump as a whole. He cited his policies and what he would have done if he were the president. However, for him to say how he would have caused a massive change in the immigration policy to stop the attack is just a silly dream. He has little knowledge of the workings of the government, and keeps on saying that he would do this and that without any actual plan on how to reach his goals.
In this article, Donald Trump attacks Bush because of how 9/11 happened during his time in office. He said that while he doesn't blame the former president, he can still think of three reasons as to why some people might hold him responsible. Trump had cited: Bush's apparently weak immigration laws, lack of communication between the FBI, National Security Council, and the CIA, and the failure to act despite knowing of the attack in advance. So what would have Trump done if he was the president at the time? He stated that with his strict immigration laws, the terrorists would have had a tough time getting in to the country, and that he would have made sure that the three agencies were communicating with each other. In response to this, George Bush's brother and current presidential candidate, Jeb Bush, argued that the former president "Kept us safe."
Although the things Trump says are usually illogical and silly, this time he did make some good points. It is fairly reasonable to hold Bush responsible because the Bush administration was in general disarray. The government seemingly looked the other way despite knowing that an attack was likely. I also have to disagree with Jeb Bush's argument of how his brother kept the Americans safe after the attack. It is well known that the former president's response to the attack was to invade Iraq, using it as an excuse to wage war. If he truly did keep us safe, then he would not have sent soldiers to their deaths. However, this is not to say that I agree with Trump as a whole. He cited his policies and what he would have done if he were the president. However, for him to say how he would have caused a massive change in the immigration policy to stop the attack is just a silly dream. He has little knowledge of the workings of the government, and keeps on saying that he would do this and that without any actual plan on how to reach his goals.
Is Biden Running or not?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/17/politics/joe-biden-president-2016-firefighters/index.html
The first democratic debate has already passed, with six announced candidates running for the primary democratic seat for next year's presidential election. Controversy, or talk behind the scenes rather surrounding the topic of whether or not our current vice-president, Joe Biden, is going to run for this seat has been going on since the beginning of the year. The news coverage on Biden's decision has been plenty, and this article goes to say that his running is probable, after he was said to have contacted influential labor group, IAFF, and "strongly indicated in the phone conversation that he is planning to run for president". Biden is also said to have contacted several democratic strategists this past week as well.
Like in the article, I think that while Biden's campaign is still iffy and unsure, he will have the support of both unions and in turn the people. I do, however, believe that he has to be quick in making his final decision, because he has dragged it on long enough. People know his name, yes, but he has to make use of every single day to gain support if he is to run, because the other candidates who have already announced their campaigns have a slight upper hand.
The first democratic debate has already passed, with six announced candidates running for the primary democratic seat for next year's presidential election. Controversy, or talk behind the scenes rather surrounding the topic of whether or not our current vice-president, Joe Biden, is going to run for this seat has been going on since the beginning of the year. The news coverage on Biden's decision has been plenty, and this article goes to say that his running is probable, after he was said to have contacted influential labor group, IAFF, and "strongly indicated in the phone conversation that he is planning to run for president". Biden is also said to have contacted several democratic strategists this past week as well.
Like in the article, I think that while Biden's campaign is still iffy and unsure, he will have the support of both unions and in turn the people. I do, however, believe that he has to be quick in making his final decision, because he has dragged it on long enough. People know his name, yes, but he has to make use of every single day to gain support if he is to run, because the other candidates who have already announced their campaigns have a slight upper hand.
Trump V.S. Bush blowing up 9-11
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trump-immigration-terror-attacks-214905
I agree with Trump, when he says that we were not safe under the presidency of George W. Bush, to the extent that when 9-11 occurred our country went into a state of chaos and fear towards a specific race of immigrants. This terrorist attack made Americans doubt their own security and freedoms with the after effects of the attack. I disagree with Jeb Bush when he says his brother did what any president would do because George Bush's response targeted a specific group of immigrants and created misconceptions about people who were looked like they were the same race, or had the same religion as the terrorists. I disagree that Trump would have handled the situation better because of his little to no knowledge of foreign policy. An attached video in the article shows an ad sponsored by the Jeb Bush campaign about how Trump avoids answering questions about foreign policy, and when he does it only shows that he has no concrete plan on how to move forward with international relationships.
I agree with Trump, when he says that we were not safe under the presidency of George W. Bush, to the extent that when 9-11 occurred our country went into a state of chaos and fear towards a specific race of immigrants. This terrorist attack made Americans doubt their own security and freedoms with the after effects of the attack. I disagree with Jeb Bush when he says his brother did what any president would do because George Bush's response targeted a specific group of immigrants and created misconceptions about people who were looked like they were the same race, or had the same religion as the terrorists. I disagree that Trump would have handled the situation better because of his little to no knowledge of foreign policy. An attached video in the article shows an ad sponsored by the Jeb Bush campaign about how Trump avoids answering questions about foreign policy, and when he does it only shows that he has no concrete plan on how to move forward with international relationships.
Bernie Sanders closes in on Hillary Clinton's money lead
Despite not being backed by a super PAC, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is closing the monetary gap between his rival Hillary Clinton. Compared to Clinton's 400,000 donors, Sanders has received donations from 650,000 people. While Clinton has amassed $28.8 million from July to September, Sanders managed to raise $26.2 million. Furthermore, it is key to note that, while Clinton has spent $25.8 million from her raised $28.8 million on her staff and advertisement ploys, Sanders has spent $11.3 million of his earned $26.2 million and instead opted to focus on organizing.
The article pointed out that Sander's donating base are people who he can rely on for cash, who "may give and give again," according to Sanders' campaign manager and is his primary means of fundraising his campaign, while Clinton has allied herself with a super PAC. I think the effect of Sanders' campaign - a self-proclaimed "people-oriented campaign funded by the people" - has a powerful effect on the American people, especially considering the current distrust of the political establishment.
I think, although it's a risky gambit to rely so much on the people and not on the wealthy (for instance, Sanders has rejected a donation from Martin Shreki, a CEO who raised the price of a drug for HIV/AIDs patients from $13.50 to $750/tablet (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-martin-shkreli_5622637fe4b08589ef47aa62)), it has, so far, definitely paid off and bore fruit. He's set himself apart from other candidates and I am curious to see how far his populist support will take him - going back to the article "Donald Trump vs. the Party: Why He's Still Such a Long Shot," we know that candidates without any support from the political establishment are known to fare unfavorably, leaving Sanders, who has been uncompromisingly against allying himself with the wealthy, in a conundrum.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-fundraising-fec/index.html
Sanders redefines Socialism
Just a few years ago, socialism was synonymous with "liar," and "hypocrite." However, Bernie Sanders emerges as a self proclaimed democratic socialist, and he's doing really well in the polls. Which begs the question, what has changed about the political views of america? David Weigel and David Fahrethold state in their article, "What is a democratic socialist" that Bernie is able to redefine the meaning of a socialist because "twenty-four years after the end of the Cold War, many Americans no longer associate socialism with fear or missiles - or with failure, food lines or empty Soviet supermarkets. A word their elders saw as a slur had become a blank..." Bernie defines democratic socialism as "a pursuit of fairness in a country now rigged by the rich." But the popularity of Bernie Sanders and his democratic socialism can be explained by the younger generation's outrage at the unfair treatment of the lower/ working class. Bernie Sanders promises a "government which represents all people, rather than just the wealthiest people," and maybe, that's what people need.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-a-democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-tries-to-redefine-the-name/2015/10/17/d722ba80-7370-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
-Hailey Lam
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-is-a-democratic-socialist-bernie-sanders-tries-to-redefine-the-name/2015/10/17/d722ba80-7370-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
-Hailey Lam
The GOP Race to the Bottom
The Republican primary campaigns are seemingly one-downing each other, instead of one-upping.
Nasty statement after nasty statement keep coming, and it doesn't look like this chain is going to end soon. A sequence incited by Donald Trump has the other presidential candidates following in suit, as we see outrageous remarks from Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and even Jeb Bush. Everyone seems to think it's okay to be saying things that fire up controversy -- perhaps some even think that it is helping their campaign, like it has somehow helped Donald Trump's.
The author of the article here is arguing that everyone in the GOP is essentially trying to see who hits the bottom first from all the dirty talk. I clearly see where he's going with this and I definitely think the Republican party is going to divide itself so much so that there will be no chance that the GOP nominee takes the Oval Office in 2016.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/opinions/zelizer-republican-click-bait-primary/
Nasty statement after nasty statement keep coming, and it doesn't look like this chain is going to end soon. A sequence incited by Donald Trump has the other presidential candidates following in suit, as we see outrageous remarks from Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee, and even Jeb Bush. Everyone seems to think it's okay to be saying things that fire up controversy -- perhaps some even think that it is helping their campaign, like it has somehow helped Donald Trump's.
The author of the article here is arguing that everyone in the GOP is essentially trying to see who hits the bottom first from all the dirty talk. I clearly see where he's going with this and I definitely think the Republican party is going to divide itself so much so that there will be no chance that the GOP nominee takes the Oval Office in 2016.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/18/opinions/zelizer-republican-click-bait-primary/
Clinton goes on the attack over voting rights in Alabama
In this article, Clinton emphasizes her disapproval of the voting laws in Alabama. She claims that the new laws of requiring a photo ID to vote and the closings of driving licensing offices in mostly black area were enacted to hinder the votes of people of color and youths. However, in response to this, Alabama's governor and other political leaders, say that the reason for the closings were not for a political agenda but rather to reduce costs. After much criticism, the Alabama legislature agreed to at least open the driving licenses offices,the ones that were closed, once a month, but Clinton does not believe that this is not enough.
I agree with Clinton in that the new voting laws were made to stymie the votes of blacks since Alabama is a Republican state that has a long history of discrimination against people of color. Blacks would generally vote for Democratic Party, so I think that the closing of driving licenses offices in black areas is just a way to make sure that Democratic candidates do not win in political elections. I think that Clinton is right and that we need to make sure that everyone has an equal chance to vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-goes-on-the-attack-over-voting-rights-in-alabama/2015/10/17/dbef615a-7373-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
I agree with Clinton in that the new voting laws were made to stymie the votes of blacks since Alabama is a Republican state that has a long history of discrimination against people of color. Blacks would generally vote for Democratic Party, so I think that the closing of driving licenses offices in black areas is just a way to make sure that Democratic candidates do not win in political elections. I think that Clinton is right and that we need to make sure that everyone has an equal chance to vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-goes-on-the-attack-over-voting-rights-in-alabama/2015/10/17/dbef615a-7373-11e5-9cbb-790369643cf9_story.html
Marco Rubio and immigration reform: the devilry is in the detail
Marco Rubio insists he supports immigration and a pathway to citizenship but has shifted from backing a comprehensive overhaul to a more piecemeal approach. Rubio says he has changed his tactics not his overall position on the issue. Critics, however, argue that Rubio neglects to identify the metrics and timetables of the situation which could be the most crucial. Knowing the growing influence of the Latino voters it would prove to be beneficial to sway this demographic. Rubio has said he is personally open to green cards but emphasizes an enforcement first approach. His step by step process begins with controlling the border and modernizing the legal immigration system. He argues that only after these two are accomplished can he deal with the 11 million undocumented immigrants. The three issues he continuously raises are: illegal immigration that is out of control, a broken legal immigration system, and that fact that millions of immigrants are already in the country illegally. He says, "You’re not going to round up and deport 11 or 12 million people, and you’re also not going to blanket award 11 or 12 million citizenship cards.” His plan includes "beefing up personnel and fencing off certain sections; set up an entry-exit tracking system to crack down on visa overstays; move toward a merit-based visa system, away from the current family-based system." As for green cards he says "undocumented immigrants would pass a background check, learn English, pay a fine, start paying taxes and get a work permit. They would remain in that status for at least 10 years, after he would “personally support” allowing some to apply for a green card." Advocates, however, are far from sold. Daniel Garza, executive director of the Libre Initiative, and Frank Sharry, director of America’s Voice, a progressive immigration reform advocacy are concerned that Rubio has not adequately defined the particulars about his reform. Sharry argues "For years Republicans have kept moving the goalposts on what constitutes a secure border because it allows them to avoid the issue of legalizing undocumented immigrants, an issue that divides the GOP.” Democrats have also attacked Rubio’s narrative, arguing that his immigration plan would postpone the debate over a path to citizenship until after his presidency
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/18/marco-rubio-immigration-reform-2016-elections
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Trump's offensive question: "Where are you from?" and thoughts that nations should pay the US for defense
This article and the video attached to the article highlighted yet another one of Trump's controversial comments associated with people of different racial backgrounds. Joseph Choe, a Harvard student, had asked Trump to clarify a statement he had previously made over the summer that implied that "South Korea takes advantage of the United States in terms of the defense spending on the Korean peninsula."
Trump asked him, "Are you from South Korea?" Choe answered, "I'm not. I was born in Texas, raised in Colorado." Before he could go on and ask him an actual question, Trump went on to speak passionately about how he believes it is wrong that America is defending countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea for nothing in return. Choe tried to interject that the South Korean government is paying America for their defense, but Trump did not let him finish, saying that the sum is "peanuts compared to what we're doing for them." He cited the TVs produced by South Korean companies as evidence of the country's economic prosperity and went on to say that if countries wanted defense from America, they should have to pay for it.
While I agree with Trump to a certain extent that we should reconsider the funds that are going into defense for foreign nations, I don't think every country should be expected to pay an equal amount of money to the American government. Each country's economic status is different, so it would be unreasonable to expect each government to pay the same amount. Furthermore, the issue of defense for South Korea is not something that concerns only the South Korean government. North Korea is a global threat, so every country that is giving aid to the South Korean government is also giving aid to a collaborative effort to end the use of nuclear weapons and the danger that North Korea poses on the rest of the world. I don't think it's entirely fair for Trump to expect South Korea to pay the American government a large sum of money for their support on such a global issue.
I'd also like to address Trump's question to Choe, asking him "Are you from South Korea?" immediately after Choe asked him to clarify his statement. This question may seem harmless to some people, but Choe's answer highlights the underlying nuance of racism that it has for many Asian Americans. The article cites sociology professor Jennifer Lee, who says "It's this persistent perception that Asian-Americans are not American, that they are perpetual foreigners." I think she put it perfectly. I find it extremely annoying when people ask an Asian, "Where are you from?" and then act surprised when they give an answer that is not an Asian country. They then proceed to ask, "Where are you really from?" as if to say our first answer should never be anything but the Asian country where our parents or grandparents were born. Asian-Americans are Americans too. It's not like we are any less American because of our cultural heritage.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448718726/south-korea-trumps-where-are-you-from-moment?sc=tw
Trump asked him, "Are you from South Korea?" Choe answered, "I'm not. I was born in Texas, raised in Colorado." Before he could go on and ask him an actual question, Trump went on to speak passionately about how he believes it is wrong that America is defending countries like Japan, Germany, and South Korea for nothing in return. Choe tried to interject that the South Korean government is paying America for their defense, but Trump did not let him finish, saying that the sum is "peanuts compared to what we're doing for them." He cited the TVs produced by South Korean companies as evidence of the country's economic prosperity and went on to say that if countries wanted defense from America, they should have to pay for it.
While I agree with Trump to a certain extent that we should reconsider the funds that are going into defense for foreign nations, I don't think every country should be expected to pay an equal amount of money to the American government. Each country's economic status is different, so it would be unreasonable to expect each government to pay the same amount. Furthermore, the issue of defense for South Korea is not something that concerns only the South Korean government. North Korea is a global threat, so every country that is giving aid to the South Korean government is also giving aid to a collaborative effort to end the use of nuclear weapons and the danger that North Korea poses on the rest of the world. I don't think it's entirely fair for Trump to expect South Korea to pay the American government a large sum of money for their support on such a global issue.
I'd also like to address Trump's question to Choe, asking him "Are you from South Korea?" immediately after Choe asked him to clarify his statement. This question may seem harmless to some people, but Choe's answer highlights the underlying nuance of racism that it has for many Asian Americans. The article cites sociology professor Jennifer Lee, who says "It's this persistent perception that Asian-Americans are not American, that they are perpetual foreigners." I think she put it perfectly. I find it extremely annoying when people ask an Asian, "Where are you from?" and then act surprised when they give an answer that is not an Asian country. They then proceed to ask, "Where are you really from?" as if to say our first answer should never be anything but the Asian country where our parents or grandparents were born. Asian-Americans are Americans too. It's not like we are any less American because of our cultural heritage.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448718726/south-korea-trumps-where-are-you-from-moment?sc=tw
Hillary Clinton wins debate, reenergizes core supporters, but Sanders captures youth vote
I would have to disagree with this article. After watching the Democratic Debate on Tuesday, I think Bernie Sanders did a way better job than Hillary Clinton in actuality. Bernie Sanders, to me, seemed more keen and fervent and pressed on key issues such as Environmental Protection, while many other candidates were not. However, many key news stations are stating that Hillary Clinton had won the debate. Sanders, by far, received the most acknowledgment during and after the debate on social media and also received large amounts of money from donations after the debate. To me, I don't think it matters if these so called news stations viewed Clinton as the winner, because this debate can act as the impetus for others to potentially join in with Sanders, which I think is winning the debate. Even if many people think Sanders election campaign is too radical because no "socialist" can go to the White House, his presence is still being felt, and hard. It will be interesting to see in the upcoming weeks if Sanders can continue to get his poll numbers up.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-wins-debate-sanders-captures-youth-vote
- Dilpreet Singh
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hillary-clinton-wins-debate-sanders-captures-youth-vote
- Dilpreet Singh
Hillary Clinton Bets on Future With Spending Spree to Build Campaign Infrastructure
Compared to her opponents, Hillary Clinton has spent 3 times as much on her campaign than her rivals. The goal of her campaign is to overwhelm her opponents but as funding surged in the summer, the same revenue intake has not kept pace. She is spending more then she can raise which undermines her longevity of keeping ahead in media and canvassing. According to Robert Shrum, “But it [Hillary's campaign] is premised on one thing: that they can keep up the fund-raising pace.” Despite, the advantage she had in revenue her opponent, Bernie Sanders is quickly gaining ground through online donations. However, despite the surge in Bernie Sanders' funds he has yet to send personal to Nevada, Iowa, or South Carolina. This can antagonize Sanders' bid for the Democratic ticket because President Obama's team had placed people in early states by the time Hillary Clinton had done it in 2008. The Republican candidates have also raised revenue, with Jeb Bush compiling huge sums of donations trailed by Marco Rubio. Yet, both of these hopefuls lack the ability Trump's campaign team possesses through Trump's use of Twitter and other social media. Trump's free use of media has helped him to take the lead in polls and spend more on items like t-shirts than commercials. I think that Hillary needs to continue to push for heavy donations from her supporters to combat the up rise of Bernie Sanders (who has not used commercials in his campaign) and suppress it before he defeats her like President Obama. The Republican candidates need to begin to canvas heavy and need to invest heavier to stop Trump's poll numbers from increasing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/filings-reveal-hillary-clinton-leads-money-race.html?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/filings-reveal-hillary-clinton-leads-money-race.html?ref=politics
Hillary Clinton, Calling out the N.R.A., Gets a Quick Reply
Hillary Clinton, like most of the Democratic candidates, have called out the NRA and Congress for the pressing need of stricter gun control laws. America has become numb to stories of school shootings, from Columbine to Sandy Hook and now to Oregon. Clinton's suggestion to implement the gun buy-back program as enforced in Australia led to a public opposition from the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox: "Mrs. Clinton's comments validated the fears of gun owners and that her "extreme views are completely out of touch with the American people'." (which personally, is such an absurd statement to make). Clinton did admit that she had no real idea how such a law would be implemented, or how it would work- just that it was an idea worth looking at. However, in the 2008 primaries, she supported her own gun rights credentials, telling Indiana voters about her own childhood experience with guns and hunting, which Obama made fun of her for. Despite her calling-out of the NRA and getting more support for her stance against guns-unlike Sanders who is the most liberal candidate in every way EXCEPT about gun laws- Clinton said to CNN's Jake Tapper that her stance on gun control has not changed, "I spent a lot of years in Arkansas. I have a lot of experience with and respect for people who own guns, collect guns, use them for hunting, use them for target shooting," she said. "But I believe we have gone way too far in being intimidated by the N.R.A.". This is distasteful, because you can't have it both ways. Clinton shouldn't speak of possibly enforcing policies that she doesn't believe in, just because she knows its what the majority of the public wants to hear. It's about more than the NRA, it's about the safety of the American public. Despite her recent popularity after the Democratic debate, Clinton could suffer a hard blow if she keeps flip-flopping on her policies like this all the time.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-calling-out-the-n-r-a-gets-a-quick-reply/?ref=politics
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/hillary-clinton-calling-out-the-n-r-a-gets-a-quick-reply/?ref=politics
Trump Criticizes George Bush's 9/11 Record
Trump Criticizes George Bush's 9/11 Record
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/donald-trump-suggests-george-bush-failed-to-stop-911-attacks/?ref=politics
I don't understand why Donald Trump is keep going on with criticizing George Bush on the 9/11 incident (even at the Republican Debate he did that). All the interviewer asked him was how he would demonstrate compassion during times of crisis, such as a hurricane or the attacks on the World Trade Center. I looked forward to hearing what he would do, not a self-compliment rant, saying that he has more heart and is more competent than the other previous leaders who dealt with those tragedies...says the person who said, "that's the way the world works" to the Oregon shooting crisis. That's some great heart he shows......I agree with Peter King when he points out that nobody saw it coming, and it's a "cheap shot" to blame the former president for it. I think what's most important is how one handles sudden and catastrophic situations. I think that whenever Donald Trump is asked what he would do as president in a certain situation, he seems to avert the attention on someone else in a negative light in order to say, "I can at least do better than that person" which is not a dependable characteristic to show as a possible leader. It shouldn't be "I can at least do better than him", but more of "I can do this and that, which would help due to this and that reasons." He needs to learn to put himself in good light without comparing himself to someone else, but as himself. In order to back up his criticism, Donald Trump says, "[George Bush] was president, O.K.? The World Trade Center came down during his reign." So if, perhaps, a disastrous hurricane occurred during Trump's presidency, are we allowed to blame him for it? Can we say "Trump was president, O.K.? The hurricane destroyed everything during his presidency." Also, although it may have been a slip of the tongue, the fact that he called Bush's presidency "reign," it scares me how he views the position of presidency. Does he plan to "reign" over our nation if becoming president?
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/16/donald-trump-suggests-george-bush-failed-to-stop-911-attacks/?ref=politics
I don't understand why Donald Trump is keep going on with criticizing George Bush on the 9/11 incident (even at the Republican Debate he did that). All the interviewer asked him was how he would demonstrate compassion during times of crisis, such as a hurricane or the attacks on the World Trade Center. I looked forward to hearing what he would do, not a self-compliment rant, saying that he has more heart and is more competent than the other previous leaders who dealt with those tragedies...says the person who said, "that's the way the world works" to the Oregon shooting crisis. That's some great heart he shows......I agree with Peter King when he points out that nobody saw it coming, and it's a "cheap shot" to blame the former president for it. I think what's most important is how one handles sudden and catastrophic situations. I think that whenever Donald Trump is asked what he would do as president in a certain situation, he seems to avert the attention on someone else in a negative light in order to say, "I can at least do better than that person" which is not a dependable characteristic to show as a possible leader. It shouldn't be "I can at least do better than him", but more of "I can do this and that, which would help due to this and that reasons." He needs to learn to put himself in good light without comparing himself to someone else, but as himself. In order to back up his criticism, Donald Trump says, "[George Bush] was president, O.K.? The World Trade Center came down during his reign." So if, perhaps, a disastrous hurricane occurred during Trump's presidency, are we allowed to blame him for it? Can we say "Trump was president, O.K.? The hurricane destroyed everything during his presidency." Also, although it may have been a slip of the tongue, the fact that he called Bush's presidency "reign," it scares me how he views the position of presidency. Does he plan to "reign" over our nation if becoming president?
Clinton credits Australia's Gun "Buybacks", Should America Follow Suit?
In response to a question inquiring if America could do the same as Australia and take back thousands of guns, Hillary Clinton responded saying: "It would be worth considering doing it on the national level".
Clinton's approving notion on this mentioned scenario is in reference to Australia's gun control laws implemented in 1996-1997. Following a mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the prime minister at the time there, John Howard, concluded that Australia had way too many guns available for people that were also way too easy to obtain - a similar issue the USA is currently facing. Subsequently, the NFA (National Firearms Agreement) induced a provision in which certain guns would be immediately banned, such as semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. This particular arrangement shocked me. If this provision was in effect, that would mean the government would have to take back all the guns already out, no? This seems like something that I think many gun owners in America would be opposed to. Nonetheless, to solve the issue of those guns already being in circulation, Australia would supplement the owners of these banned guns with a fair sum to compensate the handing in of the now illegal goods.
Personally, I'm not too sure that this would be a great idea for the USA. Chiefly, the USA and Australia are two completely different countries. While we may share some commonalities, we are both culturally and politically individual - meaning, our ideologies on certain issues in relation to the general public and political leaders vary immensely. Whilst the seizing of privately owned guns in Australia worked out for them, it may not be received as kindly here in the USA. Also, buying back every single banned gun would definitely add to our national debt.
On the flip side, the article states that immediately after Australia's gun buybacks, both suicides and homicides resulted in a steady decline. In the USA, where mass shootings are becoming more and more prevalent and common, perhaps we should take something off of this example; if not this, what other action can be done, because clearly we need to do something?
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
Clinton's approving notion on this mentioned scenario is in reference to Australia's gun control laws implemented in 1996-1997. Following a mass shooting in Australia in 1996, the prime minister at the time there, John Howard, concluded that Australia had way too many guns available for people that were also way too easy to obtain - a similar issue the USA is currently facing. Subsequently, the NFA (National Firearms Agreement) induced a provision in which certain guns would be immediately banned, such as semi-automatic and automatic rifles and shotguns. This particular arrangement shocked me. If this provision was in effect, that would mean the government would have to take back all the guns already out, no? This seems like something that I think many gun owners in America would be opposed to. Nonetheless, to solve the issue of those guns already being in circulation, Australia would supplement the owners of these banned guns with a fair sum to compensate the handing in of the now illegal goods.
Personally, I'm not too sure that this would be a great idea for the USA. Chiefly, the USA and Australia are two completely different countries. While we may share some commonalities, we are both culturally and politically individual - meaning, our ideologies on certain issues in relation to the general public and political leaders vary immensely. Whilst the seizing of privately owned guns in Australia worked out for them, it may not be received as kindly here in the USA. Also, buying back every single banned gun would definitely add to our national debt.
On the flip side, the article states that immediately after Australia's gun buybacks, both suicides and homicides resulted in a steady decline. In the USA, where mass shootings are becoming more and more prevalent and common, perhaps we should take something off of this example; if not this, what other action can be done, because clearly we need to do something?
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9212725/australia-buyback
High-Flying campaigns can't give up charter jets
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/2016-private-jets-candidates-214894
This article doesn't boast the most controversial political news but I think that it is very important when forming our opinions about the presidential candidates. It is crazy how much spending has been put into private flying but not totally unreasonable because the politicians do need to travel far and quickly so that can continue their campaigning. Even so 2.5 million dollars invested by all of the candidates combined into chartered flying is probably why people distrust politicians so much. I think that paying so much for private planes is illogical and very selfish for Bush, Clinton and Trump who are the biggest spenders in these flights. At least Trump owns the company he flies with. Besides the fact that these payments probably boost the economy although these selfish aristocrats most likely don't fly for this reason, the bottom line is how can we trust these people to respond to the common needs when they are so addicted to their lavish lifestyle? This amount of spending is ludicrous! If they want privacy then at least fly first class. After reading this article, I view the candidates in a new light. Chris Christie is probably the most admirable because he flies commercial most of the time though that's probably what his campaign can afford. In the end: Is this issue really important when we weigh the politicians?
This article doesn't boast the most controversial political news but I think that it is very important when forming our opinions about the presidential candidates. It is crazy how much spending has been put into private flying but not totally unreasonable because the politicians do need to travel far and quickly so that can continue their campaigning. Even so 2.5 million dollars invested by all of the candidates combined into chartered flying is probably why people distrust politicians so much. I think that paying so much for private planes is illogical and very selfish for Bush, Clinton and Trump who are the biggest spenders in these flights. At least Trump owns the company he flies with. Besides the fact that these payments probably boost the economy although these selfish aristocrats most likely don't fly for this reason, the bottom line is how can we trust these people to respond to the common needs when they are so addicted to their lavish lifestyle? This amount of spending is ludicrous! If they want privacy then at least fly first class. After reading this article, I view the candidates in a new light. Chris Christie is probably the most admirable because he flies commercial most of the time though that's probably what his campaign can afford. In the end: Is this issue really important when we weigh the politicians?
Marco Rubio’s Energy Policy Centers on Drilling and Reversing Obama Rules
In this article, Marco Rubio pushes toward loosening environmental protection policies by stating that he would allow the construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline to go forward in addition to instating more offshore oil and gas drilling. He wants to reverse the EPA's regulation on greenhouse gas emissions and fracking in order to allow the extraction of gas and other energy resources available in the United States. He believes his plan is sustainable and will put America a step forward in economic progression while mocking Hillary Clinton and President Obama for their backwards, environmental regulations.
Although it is unfortunate, if Marco Rubio wins, such policies may be put in place with the Republican majority leading congress right now. Obama has relentlessly tried to improve the US in terms of sustainability and environmental protection. His efforts would go to waste if Rubio is elected. Rubio is focusing on the economic and political aspect: America would gain more power and money if it uses its nonrenewable energy resources. However, the cost in the long run is additional damage to America's ecosystem. He is failing to see all the environmental issues that plague America, including the drought in California and the earthquakes caused by fracking in Arkansas and Oklahoma, by putting his business ventures first. Not once does he mention climate change as his policies are not looking at the big picture. Instead of turning to clean energy like wind and solar power he is perpetuating the use of coal and other nonrenewable resources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/marco-rubios-energy-policy-centers-on-drilling-and-reversing-obama-rules.html?ref=politics
Although it is unfortunate, if Marco Rubio wins, such policies may be put in place with the Republican majority leading congress right now. Obama has relentlessly tried to improve the US in terms of sustainability and environmental protection. His efforts would go to waste if Rubio is elected. Rubio is focusing on the economic and political aspect: America would gain more power and money if it uses its nonrenewable energy resources. However, the cost in the long run is additional damage to America's ecosystem. He is failing to see all the environmental issues that plague America, including the drought in California and the earthquakes caused by fracking in Arkansas and Oklahoma, by putting his business ventures first. Not once does he mention climate change as his policies are not looking at the big picture. Instead of turning to clean energy like wind and solar power he is perpetuating the use of coal and other nonrenewable resources.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/marco-rubios-energy-policy-centers-on-drilling-and-reversing-obama-rules.html?ref=politics
'Pathetic' — Trump, Bush Spar Over 9/11. Maybe Neither Will Be The Nominee
Donald Trump has suggested that the former President Bush was responsible for the falling of the World Trade Center on 9/11. Jeb Bush responded by calling Trump pathetic. The article goes on to say how Trump's popularity has declined and how Jeb Bush has to deal with being part of the Bush family. I agree with Jeb Bush's opinion on Trump. 9/11 was caused by terrorists, and President George Bush Jr. was in office for only a couple of months. There was no real way he could have prevented the attacks. Instead, I think Trump is just trying to drive his numbers up again by spurring controversy. I agree with the author's argument that Trump's chances of winning are dropping, but I have yet to made a decision on Jeb Bush's chances.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/17/449415843/pathetic-trump-bush-spar-over-9-11-remarks-maybe-neither-will-be-the-nominee
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/17/449415843/pathetic-trump-bush-spar-over-9-11-remarks-maybe-neither-will-be-the-nominee
Breaking Silence, Biden Team Leans in on Potential 2016 Run
As the article states, the possibility of Joe Biden running for president makes the Democratic primaries much more undecided, and to me, much more interesting. As of now, the two main candidates of the Democratic presidential primaries are Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, with Clinton having a somewhat large lead. The article tells us, however, that if Biden enters the race he will also be a large contender, and will draw voters away from Clinton. I think that if Biden does decide to enter the race, and according to the article it seems as if he is preparing to do so, then this will make the race much more competitive. If he enters than Clinton will be weakened. This will change the race from one where there are two real candidates with a chance, and one largely leading, to a race between three candidates who are more equally well supported. It seems as if Biden's entry into the race will give Bernie Sanders a much better chance, possibly giving him a victory, as some of Clinton's supporters leave her for Biden.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/17/breaking_silence_biden_team_leans_in_on_potential_2016_run_128447.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/10/17/breaking_silence_biden_team_leans_in_on_potential_2016_run_128447.html
Friday, October 16, 2015
Why Hillary Would Make a Better President Than Bernie- Howard Tai
The author argues that Clinton's more moderate approach to politics would render her a more effective leader who can achieve practical reform, whereas Sanders' extremely liberal policies would be unrealistic to implement. Additionally, the author argues that it would be impossible for a extreme Democrat like Sanders to pass any legislation through a Republican-controlled Congress. Although I agree that moderate politicians on both sides have more realistic goals, I don't agree with the author's point that a Republican candidate would have no trouble with a Republican congress. He writes, "As for the GOP? It doesn't have this problem. Whether it's President Rubio or President Cruz, the Republican Party will have unified control of government." I find it interesting that the author claims Republicans can have "unified control" of the government, when they don't even have control of the House of Representatives, which is dominated by a Republican majority. I think if a Republican becomes our next president, he/she will inevitably have some conflicts with Congress, whether it's with the Tea Party, or the moderate Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_would_make_a_better_president_than_bernie_sanders_the_democratic.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_would_make_a_better_president_than_bernie_sanders_the_democratic.html
Monday, October 12, 2015
Populists Democrats Show Support For Sanders
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/opinions/kohn-bernie-sanders-popularity/index.html
In the article, it talks of how the populist democrats are starting to show support in favor of Bernie Sanders. This is important because originally, Clinton has had a lead on Sanders but as the campaigns dragged on, the lead Clinton had seems to be shrinking. Although they did originally have similar favoribility ratings, Clinton's unfavorates were much higher. Sander's numbers seems to show that he is resonating with the general public of the US and this goes along with the theme that the Citizens are fed up with the establishment that is the government.
In the article, it talks of how the populist democrats are starting to show support in favor of Bernie Sanders. This is important because originally, Clinton has had a lead on Sanders but as the campaigns dragged on, the lead Clinton had seems to be shrinking. Although they did originally have similar favoribility ratings, Clinton's unfavorates were much higher. Sander's numbers seems to show that he is resonating with the general public of the US and this goes along with the theme that the Citizens are fed up with the establishment that is the government.
Donald Trump strikes sour notes at No Labels
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/donald-trump-no-labels-214669
Donald Trump at the No Labels conference brought about a change in the people. The article ended with a woman saying not to make the whole event about Trump? But doesn't it seem like it was. At the conference Trump took criticize his opponents and says that he does not start anything they do. He is also very confident in himself saying he is a good business man and negotiator. It seems like the whole night was about whether Trump could do the job or not.
Why is Trump so confident and feels like he should criticize anyone? Also why doesn't he explain what he wants to do to improve America if he's to become president?
The popularity contest
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/cnn-democratic-debate-ratings-expectations-214664
The first Democratic debate of the 2016 nomination cycle will be held in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Honestly, we have to face the fact that this debate will not bring the same amount of viewers as the GOP debate brought. For one, the GOP did not have to compete with a major sports event where "The New York Mets will play the Los Angeles Dodgers and the St. Louis Cardinals will play the Chicago Cubs in playoff games."However, sports aside, the popularity of the GOP debate owes the amount of views it had, to Donald Trump himself. the "Trump effect" shows how "Donald Trump's presence increased interest in Campaign 2016 beyond the traditional political hardcore". No matter how we try ignore it, Trump technically does have bragging rights over bringing a lot of the attention to the Republican primaries. As Tyndall argues, "politics aside, [the GOP debate] had elements of a reality TV elimination contest."
The need for viewers is imperative to the Democratic debate because they are ultimately, according to Elleithee, "organizing tools. You want them to create excitement among Democrats to get involved." In order to draw viewer attention, CNN plans to have Sheryl Crow sing the national anthem and to leave the door open for VP Joe Biden to join the debate. Anderson Cooper will be the moderator, and popular anchors will be asking questions during the debate as well. In hopes of increasing ratings, these media tactics are sure to do the trick...right?
The first Democratic debate of the 2016 nomination cycle will be held in Las Vegas on Tuesday. Honestly, we have to face the fact that this debate will not bring the same amount of viewers as the GOP debate brought. For one, the GOP did not have to compete with a major sports event where "The New York Mets will play the Los Angeles Dodgers and the St. Louis Cardinals will play the Chicago Cubs in playoff games."However, sports aside, the popularity of the GOP debate owes the amount of views it had, to Donald Trump himself. the "Trump effect" shows how "Donald Trump's presence increased interest in Campaign 2016 beyond the traditional political hardcore". No matter how we try ignore it, Trump technically does have bragging rights over bringing a lot of the attention to the Republican primaries. As Tyndall argues, "politics aside, [the GOP debate] had elements of a reality TV elimination contest."
Is Carson better than Trump?
Ben Carson is the less entertaining version of Donald Trump. However, Donald Trump doesn't scare me like Carson does, because Trump is a caricature. He's easy to make fun of; from his cartoonish appearance to his wild gesticulations. But unlike Trump, Ben Carson states his views with the calm surety expected of a sane person. Outrageous statements like "the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed," or that not " every lifestyle is exactly of the same value." Perhaps what makes Ben Carson seem like such a reasonable person is that Donald Trump is running. Anyone seems reasonable compared to Trump, even Ted Cruz. And it's not only right wing extremists who are listening to Carson. His calm tone encourages young undecided voters to tune in to his speeches the author of this article states that "Carson expresses his opinion - typically grounded in common sense and widely shared by the American people - the media declares that some people are 'offended,' and he doubles down, restating his position again and again in the same calm, even tone." Its it wrong for people to be outraged at the insane views that Carson holds? Carson supporters make liberals out to be hysterical. His calm tone is no better than Trumps shouting matches because he isn't here to debate. He's the person who pretends to be the calm one, the one who acts like he's taking the high road but is actually unwilling to admit he's wrong. 'you're the hysterical one, and I'm the reasonable one. I haven't done anything wrong and I don't want to have this argument anymore.'
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425348/ben-carson-donald-trump-pc-left-outrage
-Hailey Lam
Clinton and Sanders = lecture vs. rock concert
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/10/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-event-comparison/index.html
This article stated that the political events for Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, can be likened to a lecture hall and a rock concert respectively. This is because, while both of the people are democratic candidates, the atmosphere of these events are vastly different. According to the article, an event created by Sanders has a much wider age span, with a lot of younger people, and a much bigger and wild crowd, while Clinton has a smaller, older audience who are not a excited. The article went on to say that this was because of the different styles of both candidates. Sanders and his team organized events in populated areas to gather thousands of people around him and listen to him. Clinton on the other hand, had smaller events to make a more direct connection with the voters because she had already been in the presidential campaign spotlight in the past.
This article was actually very interesting to read. Although I have heard of the various events organized by the candidates, I have never expected them to be so vastly different. Sanders' events was especially interesting. He is the oldest candidate in this election, yet he mostly attracts the younger generations. In my mind, the events were always sort of like what Clinton's was: a small, reserved crowd, that listened to and questioned the candidate who was speaking. But instead, we also have an extremely excited crowd (sort of like one in a rock concert/ sports game) that loudly cheers for their candidate.
This article stated that the political events for Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, can be likened to a lecture hall and a rock concert respectively. This is because, while both of the people are democratic candidates, the atmosphere of these events are vastly different. According to the article, an event created by Sanders has a much wider age span, with a lot of younger people, and a much bigger and wild crowd, while Clinton has a smaller, older audience who are not a excited. The article went on to say that this was because of the different styles of both candidates. Sanders and his team organized events in populated areas to gather thousands of people around him and listen to him. Clinton on the other hand, had smaller events to make a more direct connection with the voters because she had already been in the presidential campaign spotlight in the past.
This article was actually very interesting to read. Although I have heard of the various events organized by the candidates, I have never expected them to be so vastly different. Sanders' events was especially interesting. He is the oldest candidate in this election, yet he mostly attracts the younger generations. In my mind, the events were always sort of like what Clinton's was: a small, reserved crowd, that listened to and questioned the candidate who was speaking. But instead, we also have an extremely excited crowd (sort of like one in a rock concert/ sports game) that loudly cheers for their candidate.
Joe Biden in the shadows
This article highlights a part of Joe Biden's time as vice president in which the president gave him the very important task of contending for stricter gun control in the Senate, only to find that he failed to accomplish it. The article says that this failure was not because of a lack of skill or competency on Biden's part, rather, it was a lack of aggressive push and quick thinking.
Gun control has always been a major issue for Joe Biden. As senator, he had written the last major gun legislation, which passed in 1994 after years of debate over it. However, during his time as vice president, Biden did not fight aggressively enough for the issue. It seemed like he saw the difficult, almost impossible situation as something that could never be achieved and then just lost steam. He called many meetings and offered some proposals, but his ideas were not original or particularly moving enough to spark negotiation in the Senate. He didn't assert his positions actively or push to convince other political figures of his stance.
I couldn't agree more with the author's point that "how Biden handled a tough, some believe impossible, assignment offers a window into his leadership style at a moment when he is weighing a possible run for the Democratic nomination for the presidency." There were many times in the course of this election process when I completely forgot that Joe Biden is even in the race. The current vice president has remained in the shadows ever since the campaigning started. There have even been rumors that he is not actually running, or that he will drop out at the quickest sign of difficulty.
It's time for Biden to make a decision. If he is running for presidency, it isn't looking good so far that he has failed to offer something unique to the table. At this point, he is an easily forgettable candidate. I think even if he would start making a serious effort to get into the spotlight now, he would be easily overshadowed by Clinton or even Sanders, candidates who have been actively promoting their platforms since the start of the election.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-gun-control-effort-sandy-hook-214644
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/joe-biden-gun-control-effort-sandy-hook-214644
Donald Trump Won't be the GOP Nominee
In an interview with Rita Cosby, Ted Cruz said that Donald Trump won't be the GOP nominee. He believes that he could win the nomination based on his principles and once Trump loses all of his supporters will turn to Cruz. Trump has encouraged voters to look at the candidates with a different set of criteria, who stood up to Washington? Cruz has a reputation in Washinton for standing up to his own party. All signs point to a short alliance with the winner recieving the other candidate's supporters.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-interview/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ted-cruz-donald-trump-interview/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)