http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/21/politics/hillary-clinton-fundraising-2016-primary/index.html
In this article, it talks about a pretty cool ides that the Hillary campaign is using now that they have finished a run of tours to talk to voters. They have began fundraising to make up the money they will use down the homestretch as they push for the primaries. This idea is something they call 'hillstarters' (some sort of play on the fact her name is Hillary) where they invite a group of people to donate 2700 dollars to her campaign and then have them also get 10 other ppl to donate to her campaign. If these 10 donate then they get to come to some fundraisers she hosts and Get to feel lik they are contributing to her campaign. Its a good idea because all they have to do is find a bunch of rich ppl who have more rich friends and then these rich ppl basically do the fundraising for them. Pretty smart in my opinion. Their plan is to raise about 100 million dollars for the primaries.
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Thursday, April 16, 2015
american public on the border about immigration
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/07/24/cnn-poll-border-crisis-impacting-public-opinion-on-immigration/
The article "border crisis impacting public opinion on immigration" speaks about the noticsble change in public opinion on immigration over the course of just a few months. According to a CNN poll, in February of 2014 when people were asked what was most important about immigration policy the majority said that it was helping immigrants gain documentation while the minority said it was border security. After increased immigrants coming in to america though, a new poll shows that the majority say that border security is now the top priority on the immigration topic.
I think this poll is an excellent example of how the american public can change their minds so drastically just because something has been in the news recently. It amazes me that people's views can change after nothing actually happening just different coverage on the same topic.
The article "border crisis impacting public opinion on immigration" speaks about the noticsble change in public opinion on immigration over the course of just a few months. According to a CNN poll, in February of 2014 when people were asked what was most important about immigration policy the majority said that it was helping immigrants gain documentation while the minority said it was border security. After increased immigrants coming in to america though, a new poll shows that the majority say that border security is now the top priority on the immigration topic.
I think this poll is an excellent example of how the american public can change their minds so drastically just because something has been in the news recently. It amazes me that people's views can change after nothing actually happening just different coverage on the same topic.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
protesters of a wrongful shooting protest by shooting... genius
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/us/ferguson-protests/index.html
The article "Ferguson police shooter on the loose" talks about another shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. This time it was not the policeman in question, but the policeman being the victims. Two Ferguson police officers were 'ambushed' outside of their Station by unknown shooters. The two officers survived but each sustained serious injuries.
I think people are stupid. Yes, you can be angry about a black kid getting killed when he probably shouldn't have. But that does not mean yiu can go around attempting to murder police officers who have done nothing wrong. People are crazy and overreact to something that is obviously wrong but in most cases doesn't even affect them. These men were shot because of a noble profession that they have chosen which makes the people who shot them worse than the people they're mad at.
The article "Ferguson police shooter on the loose" talks about another shooting in Ferguson, Missouri. This time it was not the policeman in question, but the policeman being the victims. Two Ferguson police officers were 'ambushed' outside of their Station by unknown shooters. The two officers survived but each sustained serious injuries.
I think people are stupid. Yes, you can be angry about a black kid getting killed when he probably shouldn't have. But that does not mean yiu can go around attempting to murder police officers who have done nothing wrong. People are crazy and overreact to something that is obviously wrong but in most cases doesn't even affect them. These men were shot because of a noble profession that they have chosen which makes the people who shot them worse than the people they're mad at.
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Freedom of speech isnt all its cracked up to be
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/19/opinion/granderson-duck-dynasty/
Although this is not an extremely recent article, or an extremely recent event, it was one that i followed fairly closely and after we were assigned to the topic of bill of rights for our blog, I remembered this story. I remembered how everybody had their own opinion about whether this story was unconstitutional or not, this article takes the side of it having nothing to do with the constitution.
The article speaks of how Phil Robertson of the hit show "Duck Dynasty" in an interview with GQ said some very controversial things pertaining to homosexuals and african americans. Although he was speaking from his religious views and what he had been taught, the television network decided to suspend him from the show. The activist groups came out up in arms either supporting the network or condemning it. Those condemning it were saying that it was unconstitutional that the network can try to censor what one of their actors says because of first amendment right of freedom of speech.
Like the article explained, the amendment was not meant to protect anything and everything a person says just because he has the freedom of speech, it is meant to merely keep the government from making laws that may infringe on this right. It is completely within the network's right to suspend a person or punish an employee for speaking out on a controversial issue that may 'damage' the network's repuatation. This is event is a great example of a way that although we all have the freedom of speech, we are not allowed to say anything we want, we still must abide to society's standards or risk persecution or punishment. This does not mean that we should be worried about giving our opinion especially in regards to faith, but like all who speak out we must understand the consequences of our actions and not try to hide behind the first amendment.
Although this is not an extremely recent article, or an extremely recent event, it was one that i followed fairly closely and after we were assigned to the topic of bill of rights for our blog, I remembered this story. I remembered how everybody had their own opinion about whether this story was unconstitutional or not, this article takes the side of it having nothing to do with the constitution.
The article speaks of how Phil Robertson of the hit show "Duck Dynasty" in an interview with GQ said some very controversial things pertaining to homosexuals and african americans. Although he was speaking from his religious views and what he had been taught, the television network decided to suspend him from the show. The activist groups came out up in arms either supporting the network or condemning it. Those condemning it were saying that it was unconstitutional that the network can try to censor what one of their actors says because of first amendment right of freedom of speech.
Like the article explained, the amendment was not meant to protect anything and everything a person says just because he has the freedom of speech, it is meant to merely keep the government from making laws that may infringe on this right. It is completely within the network's right to suspend a person or punish an employee for speaking out on a controversial issue that may 'damage' the network's repuatation. This is event is a great example of a way that although we all have the freedom of speech, we are not allowed to say anything we want, we still must abide to society's standards or risk persecution or punishment. This does not mean that we should be worried about giving our opinion especially in regards to faith, but like all who speak out we must understand the consequences of our actions and not try to hide behind the first amendment.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
president and congress' battle royale
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/02/11/congress-gives-final-approval-to-keystone-xl-pipeline-bill-setting-up-veto/
In the article, "congress gives final approval to keystone xl pipeline bill, setting up veto showdown" it explains that the keystone xl pipeline bill has been passed by congress today. According to the article this is merely a formality because Of the fact that the president and his administration has repeatedly stated that They will immediately veto the bill if it is put on their desk.
Though the knowledge that congress would pass the bill and then Obama would veto it is Not new, the realization that it is more than just a simple decision on a pipeline. It is much more than that. It is the first showdown of what will most definitely become an incredible battle between congress and the president in the coming months. I can't wait to see how far the president goes to win this pissing match. Either the president will allow things to actually get done because now there is a majority in both houses or he will make sure absolutely nothing gets done.
In the article, "congress gives final approval to keystone xl pipeline bill, setting up veto showdown" it explains that the keystone xl pipeline bill has been passed by congress today. According to the article this is merely a formality because Of the fact that the president and his administration has repeatedly stated that They will immediately veto the bill if it is put on their desk.
Though the knowledge that congress would pass the bill and then Obama would veto it is Not new, the realization that it is more than just a simple decision on a pipeline. It is much more than that. It is the first showdown of what will most definitely become an incredible battle between congress and the president in the coming months. I can't wait to see how far the president goes to win this pissing match. Either the president will allow things to actually get done because now there is a majority in both houses or he will make sure absolutely nothing gets done.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
vaccination nation
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6604708
Talks of vaccinations have become more prominent this past week. This is mostly due to the recent measles outbreak in the United States. The issue has been discussed by the top politicians in the country including governor Chris Christie, senator Rand Paul, and even the president. With all these talks, the Ohio State University recently put out finding of their analysis of the factors leading to a parents choice on whether to vaccinate their child or not. The results were very interesting to me. They found that based on a 2009 study, 43 percent of republicans and independents were willing to get vaccinated while 64 percent of democrats were willing. Though there was obviously a correlation between party affiliation and willingness, the thing that really interested me was that they also found that of those asked, 60 percent who had confidence in the government were willing while 32 percent who lacked faith were willing. I think that it should be legally required for parents to have their children get vaccinated, but all the statistics show that vaccinations only help people. Studies have shown that vaccinations alone save nearly 6 million lives each year. It definitely is something that people should have the ability to question, but the results really can't be denied.
Talks of vaccinations have become more prominent this past week. This is mostly due to the recent measles outbreak in the United States. The issue has been discussed by the top politicians in the country including governor Chris Christie, senator Rand Paul, and even the president. With all these talks, the Ohio State University recently put out finding of their analysis of the factors leading to a parents choice on whether to vaccinate their child or not. The results were very interesting to me. They found that based on a 2009 study, 43 percent of republicans and independents were willing to get vaccinated while 64 percent of democrats were willing. Though there was obviously a correlation between party affiliation and willingness, the thing that really interested me was that they also found that of those asked, 60 percent who had confidence in the government were willing while 32 percent who lacked faith were willing. I think that it should be legally required for parents to have their children get vaccinated, but all the statistics show that vaccinations only help people. Studies have shown that vaccinations alone save nearly 6 million lives each year. It definitely is something that people should have the ability to question, but the results really can't be denied.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
The USA may turn gay
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/16/supreme-court-will-decide-on-gay-marriage-this-year
In the article 'supreme court will decide on gay marriage this year' it speaks of exactly what the title states, sometime during 2015 SCOTUS will vote on whether or not same sex marriage is lawful under the constitution. If it is ruled that it is indeed legal, then this will be a nationwide decision.
I find this extremely intriguing. I was under the impression that gay marriage was left up to the states because marriage is a contract recognized by the state government. This must be a case where the federal government can choose to overrule the states if its deemed a right through the constitution. I may also be completely wrong and look like an idiot, but its not like anybody else even reads these I for one do not think that same sex marriage should be recognized, but I think its going to happen in every state eventually so there really is no use trying to hold it up any longer. It doesn't mean that catholics are forced to believe in it or have to somehow change our beliefs. Its just a legal ruling it doesn't mean the church recognizes it which is all that really matters.
In the article 'supreme court will decide on gay marriage this year' it speaks of exactly what the title states, sometime during 2015 SCOTUS will vote on whether or not same sex marriage is lawful under the constitution. If it is ruled that it is indeed legal, then this will be a nationwide decision.
I find this extremely intriguing. I was under the impression that gay marriage was left up to the states because marriage is a contract recognized by the state government. This must be a case where the federal government can choose to overrule the states if its deemed a right through the constitution. I may also be completely wrong and look like an idiot, but its not like anybody else even reads these I for one do not think that same sex marriage should be recognized, but I think its going to happen in every state eventually so there really is no use trying to hold it up any longer. It doesn't mean that catholics are forced to believe in it or have to somehow change our beliefs. Its just a legal ruling it doesn't mean the church recognizes it which is all that really matters.
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Obama needs to take a look around
http://www.wsj.com/articles/karl-rove-what-was-obama-thinking-1421886713
In the article "What was Obama thinking?" the author Karl Rove spoke about how "disconnected" the President's speech was. He spoke a lot about the so called successes that he and his administration had made since he was first elected. But when you take an actual look into it, these successes aren't really there. Look at his claims about the economic improvements. Rove says that you cannot claim economic growth when the median family income has decreased by nearly 40 percent. That is not economic growth. The president also talked about the shadow of crisis has passed while terror attacks were happening the very same day. He also took credit for the lowered oil prices.
I would agree with the author on the fact that the President's speech seemed disconnected. It seemed to me that he just decided to act like everything was going well and just assume that the American People were ignorant enough to believe it. It amazes me that he would talk as if terrorism was dead in the world when 13 people were massacred in Paris and an Al-Queda affiliate took credit for it, yet there was no mention of it during the State of the Union. The thing that i find the most absurd is how he took credit for the lowered gas prices. That is baloney. Not only does he have zero control over what overseas companies decide to do with their oil. Also, in the U.S. the energy production on federal lands has decreased by 5 percent while on private lands it has increased by 60 percent. If anything the President and his administration have done everything they could to keep us from producing more energy. Honestly, I don't think in this day and age the State of the Union is even necessary. A quick google search can tell you just about anything you would wonder about the President's plans for the next year and nothing he says is set in stone. It does worry me a little that this man has two more years in office and if he really is this out of touch we all need to be worried about the kind of changes he can make with this much time left.
In the article "What was Obama thinking?" the author Karl Rove spoke about how "disconnected" the President's speech was. He spoke a lot about the so called successes that he and his administration had made since he was first elected. But when you take an actual look into it, these successes aren't really there. Look at his claims about the economic improvements. Rove says that you cannot claim economic growth when the median family income has decreased by nearly 40 percent. That is not economic growth. The president also talked about the shadow of crisis has passed while terror attacks were happening the very same day. He also took credit for the lowered oil prices.
I would agree with the author on the fact that the President's speech seemed disconnected. It seemed to me that he just decided to act like everything was going well and just assume that the American People were ignorant enough to believe it. It amazes me that he would talk as if terrorism was dead in the world when 13 people were massacred in Paris and an Al-Queda affiliate took credit for it, yet there was no mention of it during the State of the Union. The thing that i find the most absurd is how he took credit for the lowered gas prices. That is baloney. Not only does he have zero control over what overseas companies decide to do with their oil. Also, in the U.S. the energy production on federal lands has decreased by 5 percent while on private lands it has increased by 60 percent. If anything the President and his administration have done everything they could to keep us from producing more energy. Honestly, I don't think in this day and age the State of the Union is even necessary. A quick google search can tell you just about anything you would wonder about the President's plans for the next year and nothing he says is set in stone. It does worry me a little that this man has two more years in office and if he really is this out of touch we all need to be worried about the kind of changes he can make with this much time left.
Wednesday, January 7, 2015
capitol hill v. white house
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/06/white-house-issues-veto-threat-over-keystone-bill/
The article "white house issues veto threat over keystone bill" explains the clash between the current congress and the white house. The press Secretary for the obama administration announced that the president would indeed continue his stance against the keystone pipeline bill by choosing not to sign it if it is passed. Senator john hoeven is leading the charge for the passing of the bill and he believes that they have 63 senators that will vote for the bill and possibly more which will cross the 60 vote threshold that is required for passing.
It amazes me that the first act of the new congress is already being challenged by the president. I think that this is going to be quite the battle between the president and congress for the next two years. To me it sounds like congress believes that the pipeline will help the entire country with the jobs and oil it will bring and and the president is trying to please special interest groups at the expense of the american people.
The article "white house issues veto threat over keystone bill" explains the clash between the current congress and the white house. The press Secretary for the obama administration announced that the president would indeed continue his stance against the keystone pipeline bill by choosing not to sign it if it is passed. Senator john hoeven is leading the charge for the passing of the bill and he believes that they have 63 senators that will vote for the bill and possibly more which will cross the 60 vote threshold that is required for passing.
It amazes me that the first act of the new congress is already being challenged by the president. I think that this is going to be quite the battle between the president and congress for the next two years. To me it sounds like congress believes that the pipeline will help the entire country with the jobs and oil it will bring and and the president is trying to please special interest groups at the expense of the american people.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)