In my colleague, Vivian's, blog, she discussed Donald Trump as President of the United States. This editorial was very well written and Vivian provided sufficient evidence to support her claim that Donald Trump should not be president. I agree that Donald Trump is not an excellent candidate for the next president, however I must pose the question: would Hillary Clinton be a better president?
As I discussed in one of my previous blogs, Hillary Clinton has been proven to be inconsistent with her values. For instance, in 2002, 2004, and 2010, she publicly stated that she did not support same sex marriage. However, in 2013, she stated that she did support gay marriage. Inconsistencies such as this lead me to believe that she would not be an ideal candidate, but like I said, neither would Trump. To answer my own question, I do not know if Hillary Clinton would be a better president than Donald Trump.
I find it sad that the United States is in a situation where many Americans (including myself) are struggling to support either presidential candidate. It also confuses me that no one seems to like the candidates because these two people became the presidential candidates by winning support from their parties. It seems like this presidential election is different than the others because many voters do not support either of the candidates, but as someone who has never voted before (due to age), I was curious as to if this is normal. After doing some research, I found an article where the author discussed the fact that many people did not support either of the candidates in the last two elections, therefore this situation has occurred before.
I believe participating in elections is very important in our country, but lacking interest in either of the candidates makes this difficult. The points Vivian discussed about Donald Trump are very true, but I have an extremely hard time supporting Hillary Clinton as well. To me, the question of this election is not, "Who will be the best president?" it is, "Who will do the least harm?" which is exceptionally disheartening.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
Thursday, June 30, 2016
Political Parties (Blog Stage 7)
A political party is an group of people who share (similar) political beliefs and seek to influence public policy. In his Farewell Address in 1796, George Washington warned the United States of political parties when he stated, “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party...” Despite Washington's warning, political parties were established. Every four years during the presidential election, Democrats and Republicans battle until a president is elected and one party wins. So are political parties good or bad for America?
Political parties allow people to identify with a group that has similar political beliefs as them. They also help voters choose which presidential candidate or other officials to vote for in elections because these candidates represent a political party. On the other hand, political parties can cause divide in our nation, and people can get trapped in voting for candidates because of their political party rather than their beliefs. For example, a voter might vote for a presidential candidate just because they are a Democrat or a Republican, even though the other candidate is the better choice. Often, the presidential candidates of each Party represent the majority of that Party's beliefs, but in cases such as the 2016 election, many people believe that both Clinton and Trump are poor choices, so they will just vote for the one that represents their political party.
As a nation that emphasizes unity, political parties have the potential to tear us apart. While diversity is important and people are allowed to have different opinions, the constant battle between Democrats and Republicans impedes on that unity. We need to be extra cautious with these parties, using them to support individual beliefs and embrace diversity in opinions, while still remembering that we are all part of the same country--and beyond that, we are all human.
Political parties allow people to identify with a group that has similar political beliefs as them. They also help voters choose which presidential candidate or other officials to vote for in elections because these candidates represent a political party. On the other hand, political parties can cause divide in our nation, and people can get trapped in voting for candidates because of their political party rather than their beliefs. For example, a voter might vote for a presidential candidate just because they are a Democrat or a Republican, even though the other candidate is the better choice. Often, the presidential candidates of each Party represent the majority of that Party's beliefs, but in cases such as the 2016 election, many people believe that both Clinton and Trump are poor choices, so they will just vote for the one that represents their political party.
As a nation that emphasizes unity, political parties have the potential to tear us apart. While diversity is important and people are allowed to have different opinions, the constant battle between Democrats and Republicans impedes on that unity. We need to be extra cautious with these parties, using them to support individual beliefs and embrace diversity in opinions, while still remembering that we are all part of the same country--and beyond that, we are all human.
Tuesday, June 21, 2016
Comment on Classmate's Blog
The original editorial written by my classmate Andrew H. establishes a strong argument about holes in Donald Trump's campaign. I agree with the point that Trump definitely has issues with his campaign, however I would like to comment on the discussion of the Second Amendment Rights. The author mentions (and I agree) that the typical Republican argument for gun rights is that they are necessary for self-defense. They then bring up the argument that if no one had guns, people would not need them for self-defense, which is also true in theory. This is where I would like to add a point. I believe that it is important to remember that making guns illegal will not keep them from the attackers in shootings. While studies show that the majority of guns used in mass shootings are obtained legally, this does not mean that shooters will simply stop committing violent acts if guns are made illegal. Instead, by making guns illegal, we would be preventing the people who abide by the laws from having guns, but the evil attackers/shooters would likely just find a way to obtain guns illegally. Clearly they do not care about following the law, or they would not be murdering people. My question is: What makes you think they would care about following a law about guns being illegal if that was established? This is why I believe it is a right for the law abiding citizens--who obtain guns legally and use them responsibly--to be able to possess guns. There will always be evil and bad people in this world, so making guns illegal would not rid us of the need to protect ourselves.
Monday, June 20, 2016
Hillary Clinton: Can She Be Trusted? Blog 5
Hillary Clinton, former United States Secretary of State, is now running for President of the United States for the second time. In 2008, she ran for the Democratic Party's nomination against current President, Barack Obama. She is currently running for the Democratic Party's nomination against Bernie Sanders, and it appears that she is going to win. Does Hillary Clinton have what it takes to be our next President?
It is no lie that Clinton has had more political experience than the Republican Party's nomination, Donald Trump. After being the first lady of the United States, serving as the United States 67th Secretary of States, and Senator of New York, she has had her fair share of political experiences. But is she more qualified than Trump?
Recently, a YouTube video, called "Hillary Clinton Lying for 13 Minutes Straight," has been posted and has received over 8 million views. In this video, clips of Hillary Clinton from several years ago have been compared to clips of her now. The video shows Clinton expressing her opinion on several controversial issues such as gay marriage, core principles, and the email scandal, in all of which Clinton contradicts herself. For example, in a clip from 2002, Clinton states that she did not believe New York should recognize gay marriage. Then in a clip from 2004, she states that she believes marriage is "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Finally, in a clip from 2013, she states that she supports gay marriage. Trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I thought, "OK maybe her beliefs changed..." However, Clinton proved that this must not be correct when she stated, "I have been very consistent over the course of my life. I have always fought for the same values and principles," in a Democratic Presidential Debate. Additionally, the YouTube video shows Clinton contradicting herself and her "beliefs" on other subjects besides gay marriage. This leads me to the belief that either Clinton does not remain consistent with her values, or that she says whatever she believes will get her elected.
So yes, Clinton does have more political experience than Donald Trump, but her "values and principles" have not remained consistent throughout that experience. In this case, honesty is more important than experience. A Presidential Candidate could have all the experience in the world, but if they lied and changed their values, they would not serve the United States well. If Clinton is elected as President of the United States, there is no evidence that she will even keep her current beliefs and work for what she is promising voters now. Additionally, if she just says whatever will get her elected, she cares more about having political power than actually leading the United States. Therefore, once she is elected, she will do whatever she wants, and because of her dishonesty, we do not even know what that truly is.
It is no lie that Clinton has had more political experience than the Republican Party's nomination, Donald Trump. After being the first lady of the United States, serving as the United States 67th Secretary of States, and Senator of New York, she has had her fair share of political experiences. But is she more qualified than Trump?
Recently, a YouTube video, called "Hillary Clinton Lying for 13 Minutes Straight," has been posted and has received over 8 million views. In this video, clips of Hillary Clinton from several years ago have been compared to clips of her now. The video shows Clinton expressing her opinion on several controversial issues such as gay marriage, core principles, and the email scandal, in all of which Clinton contradicts herself. For example, in a clip from 2002, Clinton states that she did not believe New York should recognize gay marriage. Then in a clip from 2004, she states that she believes marriage is "a sacred bond between a man and a woman." Finally, in a clip from 2013, she states that she supports gay marriage. Trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I thought, "OK maybe her beliefs changed..." However, Clinton proved that this must not be correct when she stated, "I have been very consistent over the course of my life. I have always fought for the same values and principles," in a Democratic Presidential Debate. Additionally, the YouTube video shows Clinton contradicting herself and her "beliefs" on other subjects besides gay marriage. This leads me to the belief that either Clinton does not remain consistent with her values, or that she says whatever she believes will get her elected.
So yes, Clinton does have more political experience than Donald Trump, but her "values and principles" have not remained consistent throughout that experience. In this case, honesty is more important than experience. A Presidential Candidate could have all the experience in the world, but if they lied and changed their values, they would not serve the United States well. If Clinton is elected as President of the United States, there is no evidence that she will even keep her current beliefs and work for what she is promising voters now. Additionally, if she just says whatever will get her elected, she cares more about having political power than actually leading the United States. Therefore, once she is elected, she will do whatever she wants, and because of her dishonesty, we do not even know what that truly is.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Gun Laws Blog 4
A commonly discussed issue today is gun laws. Should they be more strict? Will the ban of assault rifles end terrorist attacks and other shootings in the United States? The article by Chris W. Cox, Gun Laws Don't Deter Terrorists: Opposing View, discusses the view that more gun control will not stop terrorists. Cox's intended audience is people who believe that more gun control will end gun violence. Chris W. Cox uses supporting evidence such as history from the Orlando shooting, the San Bernardino terrorist attack, and the attacks in Paris to establish his credibility and make his argument more effective. The San Bernardino and Paris examples both serve as proof that strict gun control and bans on assault rifles will not end terrorist attacks.
While I believe that purchasing guns should have a process that requires a license, I agree with Chris W. Cox's argument that ultimately banning assault rifles will not end violent attacks. Just as making marijuana illegal does not prevent people from possessing it, making guns illegal will not prevent these attackers from acquiring guns. Additionally, I agree with Cox's argument that we need to end terrorism, "not destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves." Attackers in shootings do not care about following the laws, therefore making guns illegal would take guns away from the Americans who follow the laws, but not from the attackers.
Cox's argument is weakened when he states, "We don't need false promises. We need real leadership," because he does not provide support of how or why leadership would help. Despite the lack of support for the argument that leadership will be more beneficial than gun laws, I believe that he provides enough evidence of why gun laws will not work in order to make the argument effective.
While I believe that purchasing guns should have a process that requires a license, I agree with Chris W. Cox's argument that ultimately banning assault rifles will not end violent attacks. Just as making marijuana illegal does not prevent people from possessing it, making guns illegal will not prevent these attackers from acquiring guns. Additionally, I agree with Cox's argument that we need to end terrorism, "not destroy the right of law-abiding Americans to defend ourselves." Attackers in shootings do not care about following the laws, therefore making guns illegal would take guns away from the Americans who follow the laws, but not from the attackers.
Cox's argument is weakened when he states, "We don't need false promises. We need real leadership," because he does not provide support of how or why leadership would help. Despite the lack of support for the argument that leadership will be more beneficial than gun laws, I believe that he provides enough evidence of why gun laws will not work in order to make the argument effective.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
Country Over Party. Blog 3
In the editorial, Republicans Considering Endorsing Trump Should Value Country Over Party, the author (whose name is not given) makes the claim that voters should value the outcome of the country over loyalty to their political party. The author wrote this editorial to republicans in an attempt to convince them not to vote for Donald Trump. Their question, "What will it be, party or country?" displays that they do not support Trump. This also implies that everyone who is considering voting for Trump is doing so because they want to be loyal republicans, not because they believe he is the preferable presidential candidate. Their logic is that people who vote for Trump will have to "hold [their] breath for four solid years," due to their overpowering interest in remaining loyal to the republican part rather than the outcome of the United States.
The author supports their argument and establishes some credibility when they quote three credible republicans that do not support Donald Trump. For instance, they quote Scott Rigell, a republican U.S. Representative for Virginia's 2nd congressional district, when he stated, "My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation's commander-in-chief." The author's use of quotes from republicans opposing Donald Trump supports their argument. However, the author neglects to mention the credible republicans that do support Trump. Additionally, the author's argument also relies on the assumption that republicans considering voting for Trump are doing so solely because of loyalty to the political party. Although this may be true for some voters, many are considering voting for Trump because they believe he is the better candidate, even if they do not completely support him.
While I believe it is important that voters value the outcome of the country over loyalty to their political party, I disagree with the author's claim that not voting for Donald Trump automatically means the United States will have a more preferable outcome. I found this editorial interesting because I believe it is important that voters support who they believe will be the best at leading this country rather than getting trapped in political parties.
The author supports their argument and establishes some credibility when they quote three credible republicans that do not support Donald Trump. For instance, they quote Scott Rigell, a republican U.S. Representative for Virginia's 2nd congressional district, when he stated, "My love for our country eclipses my loyalty to our party, and to live with a clear conscience I will not support a nominee so lacking in the judgement, temperament and character needed to be our nation's commander-in-chief." The author's use of quotes from republicans opposing Donald Trump supports their argument. However, the author neglects to mention the credible republicans that do support Trump. Additionally, the author's argument also relies on the assumption that republicans considering voting for Trump are doing so solely because of loyalty to the political party. Although this may be true for some voters, many are considering voting for Trump because they believe he is the better candidate, even if they do not completely support him.
While I believe it is important that voters value the outcome of the country over loyalty to their political party, I disagree with the author's claim that not voting for Donald Trump automatically means the United States will have a more preferable outcome. I found this editorial interesting because I believe it is important that voters support who they believe will be the best at leading this country rather than getting trapped in political parties.
Thursday, June 9, 2016
America: History's Exception by Victor Davis Hanson
In his article, America: History's Exception, Victor Davis Hanson provides an interesting background of diversity in America and how the country is different than many other countries. Hanson explains that historically, countries such as Germany and Italy valued "racial purity" and uniformity. America, on the other hand, was a culturally diverse nation.
Hanson also explains that America thrived when people of different races were able to become "Americans," while still keeping their own cultures and traditions. When America shifted from "multiracial" to "multicultural" in the 20th century, discrimination and injustice took place. Over time, America has become mostly "multiracial" again, allowing people to live in unity and keep their cultural backgrounds.
At the end of the article, Hanson makes a powerful statement that "we should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength." This article provides a valid argument America's ability to embrace different cultures, yet live together as one nation has enabled the country to become a successful and powerful nation.
Hanson also explains that America thrived when people of different races were able to become "Americans," while still keeping their own cultures and traditions. When America shifted from "multiracial" to "multicultural" in the 20th century, discrimination and injustice took place. Over time, America has become mostly "multiracial" again, allowing people to live in unity and keep their cultural backgrounds.
At the end of the article, Hanson makes a powerful statement that "we should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength." This article provides a valid argument America's ability to embrace different cultures, yet live together as one nation has enabled the country to become a successful and powerful nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)