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.

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

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

Bernie Sanders Talks Gun Control, Calls for Assault Weapon Ban

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/bernie-sanders-talks-gun-control-calls-assault-weapon-ban-n442351

Bernie Sanders expressed the need for a stronger gun control, stating that "guns have no other purpose but to kill people." I have to say that I agree with his main focus...that instead of just creating a commotion of disagreements and fights, there must be some kind of commonsense action taking place. However, it is difficult to take that action due to the disagreements and commotions, which are taking place in order to take that action he wants so much. He says that the action should be made based on what "the vast majority of the American people support." But I feel that it's not as easy as he is making it seem to be. You can't just decide on something or take action on something based on what most of the people want. Action has to be taken for the better quality of life for the people of the nation, which is exactly the reason why there is so much commotion and delays in taking the "right" action. As a senator from the small, rural state of Vermont, there were few gun laws and also no immediate need for that to take a main focus for the state. In that case, I don't know if his views and decisions in taking action for the nation's gun laws are trustworthy. Guns have never been a major problem for him as a senator of Vermont, so how would he know what is best for the nation? Although I personally believe in stronger gun control laws as Bernie Sanders does, I don't know if I trust Bernie Sanders to carry them out well because he is not experienced in that field. He is suddenly having to take a strong stance on this matter because he is looking forward to take up a national position and it is a national matter. He calls for allowed universal background checks, yet, mentions that he thinks guns should be allowed in national parks and that he is against the five-day waiting period for gun purchases. As the article mentions, I agree with the many people who expect him to go under criticism during the first Democratic Presidential Debate.

Hillary Clinton 2016: How Does She Lose?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/how-could-hillary-clinton-lose-213233

In preparation for the Democratic debates on Tuesday, this Politico article considers factors that can sway voters away from Hilary, and mistakes the Democratic presidential nominee could potentially make on her road to the election. Such factors include the build-up of a so-called "I love her but I know she can't win" sentiment, rivalry on issues with fellow candidate Bernie Sanders, and potential nominee Joe Biden, who the article seems to frame as Hillary's foil.

I thought some of the criticism the article stated on Hillary was interesting. For instance, the article claimed, "she keeps making prove-you’re-not-a-robot gaffes that make her seem weird, clunky and in need of the next round of “It’s a whole new Hillary!” reboot spin that produces the same old Hillary, over and over." The comment insinuates Hillary has to put on a deliberate front to ensure voters she is a warm candidate - and it's criticism I've never seen thrown at male candidates. Furthermore, the article framed Biden as a real threat to Clinton, because he's "got many of the soft skills Clinton lacks in public: charisma, humor and approachability." Both of these comments focused on the characters each candidate portrayed, and how voters would respond to them, which I found to be a fascinating take on candidates.

Carson on Islam in Government

When questioned as to why he believes that a Muslim is not fit to become President of the United States, Ben Carson's response implies his disapproval where he believes that they cannot be as trusted to run the country because of their faith. He says that the founding fathers would respond: "We don’t even want to take the slight chance that we would put someone in that position who had different loyalties." Carson's opinion on this is ignorant and is completely irrelevant because the faith of a person should not be the defining of his or her capability to rule a country.

His statement goes to drive the nation apart, not to unite it together. The USA is a country that has long stood for freedom to practice whichever religion one pleases to, and to say that someone adhering to one religion would be worse than another is ridiculous. Practicing Muslims have been attacked and mocked by many people, especially after the 9/11 attacks, and we don't need any other reason to continually hurt others because of their beliefs. Carson's coverage in the media hasn't been as widespread as other GOP candidates, and I hope it stays that way if he keeps making such outrageous remarks.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-founding-fathers-wouldnt-have-trusted-muslim-president