Insider Trading Case Dismissed by U.S. Attorney

Despite a near-perfect conviction rate in dozens of insider-trading cases, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara dropped charges against seven people this morning. The charges were against former SAC Capital Advisor LP portfolio manager Michael Steinberg and six analysts. Initially when the charges for insider trading were filled they stood out as being the closest prosecutors have got to SAC founder Steven A. Cohen, whose has been under investigation for years. For a decade prosecutors have been trying to prove Cohen's reliance on illegal insider tips to boost SAC's trading results, however they have never gotten close enough to accuse Mr. Cohen, himself of any wrong doing.
Mr. Bharara's argument for dropping the case, which will have to be approved by a federal judge, is that a court last year found that prosecutors had stretched the limits of the insider-trading law and in doing so undermined the legal foundation of those cases.
The charges that are being dropped are only for Mr. Steinberg and will not affect the insider-trading convictions of the six other former SAC employees or the 2014 guilt plea by the firm itself. The agreement of SAC to plead guilty in 2014 was a rare instance of a hedge fund being criminally charge for insider trading. The plea included taking responsibility for Mr. Seignberg and the handful of other former employee's actions.
This case dismissal is a bigger deal then it initially seems; it opens up the opportunity for other such cases to be redressed. Earlier in October the Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the ruling made last year that Mr. Barabara forecasted "would hamper prosecutors' pursuit of insider trading" The ruling stated that it is not enough for "prosecutors to show that someone who received an inside tip traded on material nonpublic information about a corperation." In other words, there has to be a personal relationship between the tipper and the tipped for a prosecutor to be able to prove anything. However, the request was ignored and therefore the ruling was left as the law of the land. As a result Mr. Baharara did not have much of a choice but to drop the case. While the court decides whether or not to approve the case dismissal, criminal insider-trading has potential to skyrocket with this new loop-hole.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-attorney-moves-to-dismiss-insider-trading-charges-in-sac-capital-advisors-case-1445545210?cb=logged0.7623965330421925

Do you agree with the court's clarification of what evidence a prosecutor needs to accuse someone of insider trading? Supreme Court should have taken this case? Do you think insider-trading will increase?

Hillary Gets Grilled, Comes Out Without a Scratch

This Thursday, former Secretary of State and current Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton fought off some major accusations at an eleven-hour court hearing, revolving around her response to the imminent political disaster that was Benghazi. Hillary was scrutinized by Republican politicians all day long, but she did not allow any major harm to her presidential campaign.
Clinton reasserted that she never set eyes on any requests for additional security by Libyan Embassy personnel (NBC News). She additionally commented that she is the only US government official who has ever needed to release emails, which she views as a sign that she has been transparent through this whole process. She went on to say that a great deal of the work she has done for the country has not been over email, which would explain why her email account was devoid of messages regarding the debacle in Libya as it was ongoing (NBC).
For Hillary, today was about damage control. The events that occurred in Benghazi is still pretty shady to the American public, but I think she is doing the best she can to divert our watchful eyes. In all likelihood, Hillary's involvement, or lack thereof, in the tragedy in Benghazi will never be fully revealed to the public. The Republicans are trying to pin her to the wall as treasonous, but there is no hard evidence that suggests she was involved in any wrongdoings. It may potentially come out that she was, but I think as of now that fear will be out of the voter's minds by Election Day 2016.
Hillary stood strong under scrutiny, and the positive result of the hearing should give her a little boost in the polls.
Do you guys think Hillary is at all responsible for the attack in Benghazi? What type of impact do you think this continued story will eventually have on her bid for the presidency?

Source:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/hillary-clinton-testifies-house-benghazi-committee-n449046

WikiLeaks Publishes CIA Chiefs Personal Information

WikiLeaks published personal information of CIA Director John Brennan on wednesday after a bold hack attack of the top spy's personal email account. Though all of the documents are from before Brennan's time in the Obama administration  and contain no classified data, information such as Social Security numbers, passport numbers and addresses of his family and associates is causing great concern within the government. The hackers claim to have illegally accessed Brennan's personal server last weekend and are threatening to release more documents. WikiLeaks tweeted late Wednesday afternoon that it planned to release more emails from Brennan. "Tomorrow we continue our @CIA chief John Brennan email series, including on US strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. #AfPak #CIA," the group said. This leak of information is obviously very concerning to not only the entire intelligence community, but to the government. The threat of hackers has been growing exponentially in recent years and many experts warn a cyber terror attack is eminent.

What could be the motivation of these hackers?

Does hacking pose a legitimate threat to our national security?

Is the United States prepared for a cyber terror attack?

Sources:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wikileaks-releases-second-batch-cia-boss-john-brennans-email-n449366
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34597060

Webb Drops Out of the Democratic Race, But He's Not Done Yet

On Tuesday, October 20, Former Virginia Senator Jim Webb announced that he would no longer seek the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. After polling poorly throughout his campaign (always staying around the 1% mark), raising insufficient funds, and having little to say during the first Democratic debate, the candidate decided to terminate his Democratic candidacy this past week. However, the former senator has stated that he will actively and thoroughly consider a campaign as an independent. Thus, though his time in the Democratic race is over, Webb's participation in the presidential race is far from done.



Webb recently stated how "Some people say I am a Republican who became a Democrat, but that I often sound like a Republican in a room full of Democrats or a Democrat in a room full of Republicans" (CNN),  referencing the fact that his political views do not completely align with either party's platform. He and his advisers have acknowledged that running in either the Republican or the Democratic campaign would not be a wise strategy, considering that his opponents would be much more in-line with each of the parties' platforms, something that is quite important in today's trend of increasing political polarization.

Despite his failure in the Democratic race, Webb still feels confident about running for president under an Independent banner. "If we ran an independent race, I honestly could see us beating both [Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton]" (New York Times). He believes that his pragmatic views regarding a number of social and fiscal issues, as well as his criticism of the current state of campaign finance in America, would greatly appeal to the people of the United States. He also thinks that he would have much more success if he was not directly competing with candidates who simply reflected the ideas of their respective parties. As a result, if he decides to run as an Independent, Webb and his campaign advisers expect large funding boosts and a surge in popularity.

What do you think?

If Webb runs as an Independent, will his popularity among the American people and his funding increase? Why?

Would any Independent candidate, not just Jim Webb, stand a chance in this presidential race? Why of why not?

Was Jim Webb ever a serious candidate for the presidency, or do you believe that he was simply a part of the race to boost his political appearance?

Sources: 

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/20/jim-webb-withdraws-from-race-for-democratic-presidential-nomination/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/jim-webb-2016-election-drops-out/

California Three Strikes Law

In the state of California, the "Three Strikes" law of 1994 stated that on a criminals third offense they are sentenced 25 years to life in prison. This law was revised in 2012 after a series of protests displaying concern regarding the harshness of these guidelines, and it now stands as in order to be charged 25 years to life the criminal must be charged with a serious or violent felony. In addition, a convict serving their third sentence can petition the court for a reduced time sentence, assuming that they qualify. However, many California citizens still believe that this law is unjust, and have been cleared for a petition to drive back the scale of the law.

In the proposition of this proposed ballot initiative, it states that crimes such as house robberies and burglaries will not be counted as "serious felonies". Making criminal threats will also no longer be considered a serious felony. Alterations to the law will also make it easier for convicts to petition the courts for reduced sentences, because even though it was permitted as of 2012, it was not often possible. Limitations were set on the number of strikes a convict could be given at a time to one, whereas there previously were no rules against counting multiple felonies in one case as separate strikes.

If these changes to the law are passed, there will be mixed opinions among the public. Some still favor the harsh regulations under the original law of 1994, while others want this policy as scaled back as possible. Being a very controversial topic has made it hard for the state of California to alter the law in major ways, so this act could be pivotal. Do you think that there are more benefits to a tighter three strikes law or a looser three strikes law? Are there possible deficits to the three strikes law as it stands now?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-me-pol-petition-drive-three-strikes-20151020-story.html
http://www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm

Joe Biden Will Not Run for President, So What Now?

Following months of speculation, Vice President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will not run for president in 2016. Biden cited the ongoing grief his family feels following the January death of his son, Beau Biden, as the main reason behind his decision. He was unsure if his family has the emotional endurance for a campaign, and possibly, eight years of presidency. While this comes as a surprise to many who saw Biden, a man who has held presidential aspirations throughout his esteemed political career, as a strong candidate for the 2016 race, it is not difficult to understand why the 72 year-old will not seek the bid. Biden, despite never announcing his candidacy, polled at a strong 18% to Clinton's 45% and Sanders' 29% in a CNN poll from last week. Biden also stated that, in regards to the amount of time necessary to mount a winning campaign, the "window has closed."

Similar to the manner in which it began, Biden's political career will end on January 20, 2017, amidst a time of personal tragedy for the politician. A few weeks after he was elected to the Senate following an underdog campaign in his home state of Delaware, his wife and 1 year-old daughter Naomi were killed in a car accident while shopping for a Christmas tree in Hockessin, Delaware. His sons were hospitalized. Biden was resolved to never assume his elected position. After being convinced to not resign by Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, Biden was sworn into office on January 5, 1973, at the Wilmington Medical Center with his sons in attendance. He made the 1 1/2 hour commute from Wilmington to Washington, D.C. each day to be with his sons at the hospital while they recovered. On Wednesday, only months removed from another great tragedy, Biden stated that his family was his first priority, and that he simply would not be able to devote himself fully to a bid.

Biden, however, contended that while he will not be a candidate, he "will not be silent." He fully intends to play the role of the elder statesman, planning to spend the next 15 months "fighting for what we care about." Biden, who was known throughout his career as a mediator between the Democratic and Republican parties, appealed to the two parties to not see one another as enemies, and to work together for the good of the nation.

Many point to Biden's announcement as only another boon to Clinton's campaign, which has only grown in strength following a strong showing at last week's first Democratic debate. Clinton tweeted only praise for Biden following his decision, saying that she is forever "inspired by his optimism and commitment to change the world for the better." Many believe that, left with only progressive rock star Bernie Sanders as her main opponent, Clinton's path to the nomination is markedly easier. While it is not entirely clear how much Biden's announcement will help Clinton, most analysts are convinced that Clinton, not Sanders, will be the main beneficiary. 

As for the current situation, Biden finally making an announcement will certainly simplify things. While it only removes one of the many distractions presently clouding the 2016 election, it will allow the voters to focus on the eligible candidates and better educate themselves for November 2016.

Your thoughts:

How do you think Biden's announcement will affect the current Democratic standings?

What are your thoughts on his announcement?

What sort of legacy will Biden be leaving behind following the close of a political career that spanned five decades?

What possible role do you see in politics for Biden following his exit from office?

Is Clinton a shoo-in for the nomination?

http://time.com/4079655/joe-biden-2016-presidential-race/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/joe-biden-not-running-2016-election/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/us-usa-election-biden-idUSKCN0SF2D220151022

Paul Ryan to Seek Speaker Position

After two powerful factions of Republicans in the House, the centrist Tuesday Group and the conservative Republican Study Committee, endorsed his run, Paul Ryan announced that he would seek to replace former Speaker of the House John Boehner. He had initially dispelled rumors that he would be running, but after gaining support, and in the wake of Kevin McCarthy's opting-out of the race, his mind has changed. In an email to his fellow Republicans, he said " “But I pledged to you that if I could be a unifying figure, then I would serve, I would go all in. After talking with so many of you and hearing your words of encouragement, I believe we are ready to move forward as one, united team. And I am ready and eager to be our speaker.”
The support from the two House factions comes after Ryan recently received support from the very conservative Freedom Caucus. However, there has been a silent agreement between the two groups regarding the processes and style in the House under Ryan's watch. The Freedom Caucus wants Ryan to give rank-and-file lawmakers a greater voice, and in return Ryan wanted an agreement to change the ousting procedure, as well as full support from the faction. Neither side was guaranteed anything, but they agreed to operate on faith.Ryan is certainly qualified for the job. He became more credible to fellow Republicans this week when he declared he was frustrated with lawmakers circumventing committees. Ryan himself is the chairman of the very powerful Ways and Means Committee. At 45, he would bring a fresh new face to the party, especially in contrast with Boehner's "weatherworn Washington longevity." He pledged to make the House a more open and inclusive body—one where every member can contribute to the legislative process.”

The internal GOP election is set for next week, and the floor vote is set for Thursday. What do you think? Is Ryan the best man for the job? Why have so many other House leaders refused to run for Speaker? What are some challenges the new Speaker must deal with?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/paul-ryan-gains-enough-support-to-run-for-house-speaker-1445541068
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/house-gop-factions-lining-up-for-paul-ryan-as-speaker.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Joe Biden FINALLY Decides Whether or not to Run

Biden decides not to run:



After a long "will he won't he" campaign, Biden finally came out to the public on Wednesday as definitely not making a run for the nomination. In his address, Biden noted the loss of Beau Biden, his eldest son, as a major factor in his decision; his death was not only tragic, but it also came at a very unfortunate time. In between the grieving process and the responsibilities of being the vice president, Biden said, it was impossible to begin a campaign. Bloomberg claimed there was a bit more to the case too. They claim that Biden had a group of close advisers telling him how to run a successful campaign, and they were continually trying to motivate him to run. However, Bloomberg claims that Biden became disillusioned with them, opting instead to drop his bid for presidency. In addition, they detail how difficult Biden's run would be. In a campaign continually marked by the desire for change, Biden has not distinguished himself as sufficiently different from the Obama administration.
What will become of Biden now?
 Biden has always admonished to his friends that he like to "live in the present," but now Biden will have to plan for the future. It's a mantra that he has been hard taught after the death of his wife and daughter in a car crash more than 40 years ago and now his son's passing from brain cancer. However, without a run for president and with his term as vice president coming to an end, Biden's options are closing. Biden first entered office at 27 and has been in office his whole life. Presidential campaign aside, he has served one of the most beloved terms of any public officer. Although notably wounded by the Democratic Party's favor of Hillary over him for the next in line, Biden said that he has come to terms with his retirement, and he is proud of his 50 years in office.
“I’ve had the very great good fortune and privilege of being in public service most of my adult life, since I’ve been 25 years old,” Biden said, with Obama and his wife, Jill, at his side. “And through personal triumphs and tragedies, my entire family … and this sounds corny, but we found purpose in public life. So we intend, the whole family — not just me — we intend to spend the next 15 months fighting for what we’ve always cared about, what my family has always cared about, with every ounce of our being” (What become of Joe Biden now?).
Do you think Biden's decision was a good one? Would he have had a good chance to win if he retained his bid for the nomination?
http://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-eating-ice-cream-photos-2015-9
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/videos/2015-10-21/matter-of-time-joe-biden-opts-out-of-2016-race
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/what-becomes-of-joe-biden-now-145641041.html

Obama Flexes His Veto Muscles

The President delivered on his threat to veto a $612 billion defense bill and sent it promptly back to Congress. He believes that the bill falls "woefully short" because it preserves across-the-board budget cuts, blocks military reforms, and prohibits the closing of Guantanamo Bay. He hopes the veto will let Congress know that they improve their efforts.

Republicans, on the other hand, see his veto as a gross misuse of the presidential power. John Boehner has said, "The president has vowed to veto it. Why? Because he wants to stop and spend more money on his domestic agenda".

Obama wants to close Guantanamo because he believes it's the best mechanism for jihadists to recruit and that it's expensive and outdated. The proposed bill severely limited his ability to do this. 

Congress has vowed to override Obama's veto an push ahead with the bill. Senator Jack Reed has said that he hopes that a more responsible and reasonable NDAA can be agreed upon to give the troops support and stability that they need. 

Was Obama right to veto? Can the federal government reach an agreement?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/22/obama-veto-defense-authorization-bill-spending-fight/74371856/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/22/us-usa-fiscal-defense-idUSKCN0SG2LF20151022

Clinton Testifies Before House of Representatives

Amidst her rebounding polls, controversy for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arises once again. On October 22, 2015, Clinton testified before Congress to defend her name against allegations of a negligent response to the 2012 assault on the american embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The attack killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Officer Sean Smith, and CIA contractors Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty. Clinton, the Secretary of State at the time, was blamed for denying request to increase security at the embassy. Since then many republicans have criticize, what is in their eyes, Clinton's glaring inability to lead and battle terrorism in the middle east.

The hearing clarified information and possible reasoning to the State Department's alleged inaction. Documents show that different bureaus of Washington weren't aware they shared the responsibilities to maintain security on the embassies, resulting in an incredible miscommunication between different departments action was taken. Secondly, Hillary Clinton claimed that the requests for heightened security never reached her in the first place, but after the attack she immediately began creating reform and preventative measures for possible future assaults. However, the committee chairman Trey Gowdy states that Clinton's emails show her staff chose to prioritize away from the request to focus on her political career. Regardless, Clinton admits to some responsibility for the attack.

The hearing was comprised of representatives of both parties, who claimed to avoid partisan arguments in respect to the victims of the raid. Democrats and Republicans alike criticized Clinton and her staff on the evidence of negligent behavior seen in her emails. Clinton fired back repeatedly with witticisms and charm, and sincere moments of reflection and mourning. Regardless of the bi-partisan attempts of the committee, it seemed to the representatives and viewers that the arguments were rooted deeply in political opinion. After a long back and forth, Clinton plead to viewers and the committee to "understand that this was a fog of war" or to understand that there was very limited communication, and to "not take away from the heroic efforts the diplomatic security officers exhibited." The trial, of course, does not actually convict any one person of a crime. However, depending on how the electorate react to her testimonies, it could embed an even greater distrust of Clinton as a politician and may even instill the image of a weak leader.

Do you think that Clinton's Presidential campaign will be impacted by these recent discoveries and testimonies?
If so, in what way will public opinion change?

Are criticisms against Clinton rooted in politics or are they justified?


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34602691
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/22/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-hearing-updates/
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34598958

Iraq Hostage Rescue Attempt

In northern Iraq earlier this week, a U.S. military server has died for the first time since troops were removed from the country in 2011. This American Soldier died after a hostage rescue attempt that ended up saving the lives of at least 70 Iraqi hostages. This rescue was the first official U.S. military operation in Iraq since Islamic states came to power. The fallen soldier was working with members of the Iraqi peshmerga, said to be the "fiercest troop to fight against the Islamic State". This raid lasted from 2 a.m. to 4 a.m., and the injured soldiers were then airlifted to the nearest medical center. The team of U.S. troops and the peshmerga traveled 190 miles north of Baghdad to locate those being held hostage, a group consisting of 25 Iraqi military members. President Obama released a statement earlier in the month stating that he planned to train and assist Iraqi forces and place more American troops in the middle east, and this raid was the first operation under the President's new promise.

This event brings back into question President Obama's new plan to not only keep troops in Iraq, but to send more troops in. Previously Obama has carried out foreign missions by means of airstrike and providing training and sufficient funds for ground forces, but has kept the American Army's "boots off of the ground" . Ground raids are statistically proven to come with far more casualties. The casualty of this soldier has given rise to more negative opinions regarding Obama's foreign policy, questioning how this plan will benefit the United States rather than leave more casualties.

Do you think that this casualty highlights the flaws in Obama's plan to maintain troops in Iraq?
Is the higher accuracy of ground raids worth the high casualty rates?
Will this casualty ultimately change the way the public view new foreign policy?

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-death-iraq-20151022-story.html

Paul Ryan Wins Over Freedom Caucus

The Freedom Caucus, notorious rule-following Republicans, are primarily responsible for pushing John Boehner out of his position as House Speaker. They're also responsible for rejecting McCarthy as his replacement. However, they seemed to get along with Paul Ryan.

The group came to the meeting with lofty demands, typical of hard-line Conservatives. Much of the conversation revolved around making sweeping changes to the House. Ryan entertained and agreed with many of their ideas in principle--but refused to commit to any of their initiatives. He seemed to have an attitude of "If you don't want me to run, I won't". Despite his lack of total dedication, the Caucus left the meeting and decided to endorse Ryan.

Their endorsement means a lot for the Republican party--it basically ensures that Ryan will be the Republican choice for House Speaker. It also shows possible signs of future bridge-building in the fractious party. That said, if he does become Speaker of the House, things might not be as easy as winning over the Freedom Caucus proved to be. Ryan has proven himself to be a hard-line Conservative in the past, but the caucus is known for being hard to please. If he makes a wrong move, they could take him down like Boehner.

Do you think that Ryan is a good candidate for House Speaker? Will he unite a divided party or will he have to turn to Democrats for support in his initiatives? Are big changes to the House in store?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-freedom-caucus-speaker-republicans-215044

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/opinion/paul-ryan-a-speaker-for-the-freedom-caucus.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supermajority-of-house-freedom-caucus-to-back-paul-ryans-speaker-bid/2015/10/21/d7411964-781e-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html

The Families Funding the 2016 Presidential Election


As the political races for Democrats and Republicans start to come to the finish line, each candidate is still producing and finding new ways of trying to get the public to side with them. Yet how are the candidates able to produce huge campaigns ads and put up huge billboards asking the public for their vote? And if the public is helping some of the candidates how much are they writing checks for? Also, what kind of people have such money that they are able to write big checks? The answer: Males that are older, white and especially wealthy.
In the first half of the campaigns, just 158 families with the help from the companies they own/control have contributed roughly $176 million to help support the Republicans and Democrats. Furthermore, it doesn't matter what industry the person is working in that decides who they support, rather most of the money donors lean towards the right and support the Republicans. The reason why these money donors put the money with the Republicans is that most of the Republicans favor to pare regulations, cut taxes on income, shrink entitlement programs and lastly favor capital gains and inheritances. Though, many of the donors will try to "sugar-coat" the real reason of their donations, which is protecting their wealth, by saying that the Republicans  can help promote economical growth and help others to prosper. About two-thirds of the American population wants people who are making more than one million to pay a higher taxes as well as having the government intervene with the rich and poor to reduce the financial gap between the classes.  Lastly, most of the people that are donating to the Republicans are wealth not because of inheritance rather the wealth was self-made. Those people don't feel that they should have to pay so much since they started at the bottom and was able to make themselves rich. In addition, they also believe that they deserve the wealth that the make since they worked hard and long to reach the point of where they are now. 
What role(s) does the wealthy play during the campaign? And in your opinion why is there so much controversy surrounding it?
  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?ref=politics
 

Hilary Clinton's Benghazi Trial

Today, after two years of delayed occurrence, an assembly has gathered to hear the testimony of Mrs. Clinton surrounding the death of four Americans, including the Libyan ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, who were killed in an attack in 2012 while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. These deaths have caused large amounts of anger and animosity directed at Hilary Clinton. As her presidential campaign has progressed, many Democrats have questioned the validity of these attacks and whether or not they are only meant to harm her campaign rather than establish any real justice. Intertwined with the Benghazi incident is the email scandal that has plagued Clinton for many months. Her use of a personal email server has only increased the amount of bad press and has continually caused drops in her poll numbers.

Clinton opened the trial by saying, "My challenge to you, members of this committee, is the same challenge I put to myself. Let's be worthy of the trust the American people have bestowed upon us." Republic Susan Brooks, a representative of Indiana. targeted the number of emails Clinton sent during her time in office. In one stack was a pile of 800 emails and the second stack, emails that occurred after Benghazi took place, amounted to only 67. Brooks used these stacks to pin Clinton as uncaring about the events in Benghazi, to which Clinton replied that email is not the only she was communicating at the time. Throughout the trial, the emails have continually appeared as a focal point. Republic Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina was quoted saying, "Your emails are no more or less important than anyone else's. It just took longer to get the, and garnered more attention in the process." This comment was made regarding questions about the timing of the trial. Some say that the Republic party dragged it out until now so that it would be close to the Clinton campaign.

Other allegations have included the fact that more security was requested by those in Benghazi but none was sent. However, Clinton claims that the requests never reached her and stayed at the lower levels of administration who usually handle security matters. 

Tensions also rose among the committee when Representative Gowdy and Democrat Elijah Cummings of California have gone head to head on the real purpose of this hearing. Cummings feels that the hearing is meant to sabotage Clinton's campaign and that the investigations are wasting tax payer dollars on something that has already been investigated and found no results. Gowdy claims that the investigation is meant to honor the families who lost loved ones in the Benghazi attack. 

Clinton has already taken responsibility for the lives lost and her role in that, but notes that the final call on Libya from President Obama. 

Is the trial meant to harm Clinton's campaign or find answers?

Does this trial pay respect to the families of those who died or is it all politics?

How much responsibility does Clinton bear?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/congress/hillary-clinton-testimony-at-house-benghazi-panel?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee.html?ref=politics

The U.S. and Russia will Meet at Syria Conference for Discussion on Friday

For the first time after Russia’s participation in combat missions in Syria, the U.S. and Russia will meet in Vienna on Friday. Because Russian intervention interferes with Washington’s plan to defeat the Islamic State, it is imperative that the two countries address U.S. concern about Russia’s airstrikes against the opponents of the Assad’s regime. The US hopes for a political transition in Syria that would remove Mr. Assad from power while Moscow hopes for a "long term resolution can be achieved on the basis of a political process with the participation of all political forces, ethnic and religious groups" that can be achieved by a “positive dynamic in the fighting” (provided by Russian forces). This meeting is also influenced by Mr. Putin’s invitation to Syrian ruler Assad to visit Moscow on Tuesday where they discussed operations against Syria’s opponents. Assad’s acceptance not only displays defiance to the West and Russia’s effort to position itself as the main diplomat in the region, but Assad’s growing confidence. It was the first time he left the country since the civil war conflict began over four years ago. Assad’s visit to Moscow and the military intervention is important because it may position Russia as Syria’s closest ally and diplomatic partner, even overtaking Iran’s attempt to increase its role in Syria.

Additionally, Moscow and Syria have had history. In September 2013, Russia’s support of a plan that allowed Assad to hand over his chemical weapons halted US military action against Assad. Russia first began showing support of Assad when they promised to eliminate terrorists abroad, the approximately 4,000 people from the former Soviet Union that came to Syria, were trained and taught by the Islamic State and are now fighting the Syrian government.

Russian military intervention is already boosting the confidence of the Syrian government. The Syrian government forces had been losing ground, but now, the government in Damascus is attempting to regain territory once considered out of Assad’s control. Syrian, Iranian and Hezbollah fighters backed by Russian planes began capturing many villages along the city’s southern outskirts on Friday, the government’s biggest advance since Russian intervention. Mr. Putin said the Syrian government had “achieved significantly positive results” and was prepared to help lead the country to end the conflict. Russia is ready to “not only to take the path of military action in the fight against terrorism, but to take the path of a political solution.” However, many question Russia’s claim that it is targeting Islamic State militants. Many of the airstrikes have affected mainstream rebels, some of which have been trained and equipped by Washington. In addition, the Russian embassy’s claims that Russian forces hadn’t caused local casualties in recent days, but the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has proven that Russian and Syrian combined forces have taken a large humanitarian toll. At least 127 civilians, including 36 children and 34 women, have been killed by Russian airstrikes.

What do you think about the situation?

What are Russia’s true intentions? Does Russia’s history with Syria have any significance?

Are Russia’s actions in direction opposition to Washington’s plans?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/syrian-president-bashar-al-assad-visits-moscow-1445414559

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34590561

Ben Carson Takes An Unanticipated Lead

          

          Much to the dismay of many Americans, Donald Trump has been a leading Republican candidate for several months now. However, it appears he may soon be fully surpassed in the polls by underdog Ben Carson. Historically, it has become clear that "America loves an underdog, someone who will shake up the system and prove that family connections, fancy schooling and a famous name don't guarantee a win" (Milligan). With Sanders and Carson as two of the frontrunners, it's clear that this claim is not too far off. However, it leaves room for question: Will America actually vote to put one of these alternative candidates in office? 

          It seems as though Americans may well be serious about their desires for an unconventional leader. In a recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac University of Iowan Republicans, Carson took the lead, pushing Trump into the second place spot. As a swing state, Iowa will be an essential conquest for any candidate hoping to really solidify their dominance in the polls. One reason why Trump is struggling in Iowa is rooted in the state's religious nature; evangelical voters, who Trump has had a hard time winning over, are among the most politically active in the state (Haberman).

          Still, just one poll is not totally indicative of a trend. After all, just over a month ago, Trump was ahead of Carson in the polls by 6%. With Carson now ahead by 8%, who knows what next month could bring? All that we know for sure is that the candidates' respective demographics are fairly different. Donald Trump appeals to Americans who want to vote for "who would be best in handling the economy," while Ben Carson appeals to "those who consider social issues to be the most important issue" (Haberman). 

          However, for someone who claims to be committed to national social issues, Ben Carson certainly does cause an awful lot of controversy. He recently made a spectacle of himself by making some "unconstitutional comments that a Muslim should not be President" (Blackburn). In a country that values religious freedom, Carson's comments about Islam should absolutely be brought to the forefront. In addition, Carson openly criticized President Obama's current policies, even calling Obamacare the worst thing to happen to America "since slavery" (Bobic). Not to mention the time he compared homosexuality to beastiality and pedophilia! In typical fashion, I digress. I am just interested to see how my classmates react to such a wildly opinionated individual taking the lead in the polls.

I leave you with several questions:

1. Do you think that the American people are serious about voting an underdog into office? This does not need to be about Carson. Sanders, Trump, etc. all apply.

2. Do you feel that making attacks on our current president is a respectful way to assert one's own policies and ideas? 

3. Do you think that Trump will come back into the lead? Who else do you predict will rise in the polls coming up?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/22/ben-carson-edges-ahead-of-donald-trump-in-latest-iowa-poll/

Source: http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/28/2016-may-be-the-year-of-the-underdog-with-trump-sanders-and-carson

Source: http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2262

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yasmina-blackburn/he-may-be-a-brain-surgeon_b_8227662.html

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/03/ben-carson-president-2016_n_6481534.html?ir=Politics&utm_campaign=050315&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Alert-politics&utm_content=FullStory&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

Puerto Ricans Vow To Have A Bigger Voice In 2016 Election

     

     Three and a half million people live in Puerto Rico but there are 5.2 million Puerto Ricans living on the U.S mainland. The rise in crime, the fiscal crisis, and the economy have resulted in tens of thousands of people to leave and go to the U.S. This past weekend, puerto ricans from all over the U.S gathered in Orlando all with one specific goal, "to forge a national political agenda — and flex some political muscle." They tell the government if they want their vote, they will have to listen to them. 

     Unlike Hispanics, as U.S citizens, puerto ricans come to the mainland of the U.S already qualified to vote being that they are a territory of the U.S.  Puerto Rico needs America's support, their economy is $72 billion in debt and the unemployment rate has doubled.  Luis Gutiterez, a democrat of Illinois, has been trying to gain the support of congress to assist the island, in ways such as allowing the government there to restructure some of its debt through the courts.  President Obama promised to Guitierez that when the Affordable Healthcare Act was passed he would provide more funds for Puerto Rican healthcare.  However, when the time came Obama hasn't followed through on that promise, cutting healthcare funds to puerto rico but giving more to the states.  If you keep cutting healthcare you are pretty much telling the puerto ricans to come to Florida and other states and be treated which equality.  
     The puerto ricans who are in the U.S want a bigger voice in the upcoming election so they can get the government to help puerto rico out of the $72 million debt and boost their economy.  It is necessary for the candidates running for office to be ready to step in and make a difference.

By, Ethan Broder    

1) Do you think that Puerto Rico is asking too much from the U.S to cover for its $72 million debt?  If so, how else can we help?

2) How far will puerto ricans living in the U.S go until they feel their voice is heard in the government?  What could they be doing better now to express their opinion?

3) Should the U.S consider making puerto rico a state in order to get rid of the issue of separate healthcare funding?  How would this effect both sides?

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/18/449473533/puerto-ricans-vow-to-have-a-bigger-voice-in-2016-election

Will the V.P. become the President?

Over the past few months there has been much speculation regarding whether or not Vice President Joe Biden will be running in the 2016 Presidential Elections. However, Biden is coming down to the wire with only nine days left to announce his decision of running for presidency. 

This first deadline for the candidates is in Georgia on October 29th. Candidates must submit a letter of their candidacy to the state parties and, although the state's executive committee can choose to include candidates after the deadline, missing said deadline puts a candidate at a significant disadvantage. Additionally, qualifying for the ballot it no easy task. Most states require signatures from all congressional districts and while this may be easy to achieve in some states, if the candidate gives enough money to the state, in others it can be challenging. In 2008, Clinton almost missed the Virginia deadline because she did not have enough signatures. 

There has been some implication recently that Biden does intend to run. Just today Biden interviewed with CNN and made clear exactly how involved he has been in Obama's decision making. He even made statements addressing Hillary Clinton that easily can be seen as him asserting himself above a potential rival. Specifically, he spoke of his involvement with the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and his story countered previous retellings made by Clinton. Clinton has been known for saying that is was she who made the decision with Obama to proceed with the raid. However in today's interview Biden makes clear that he was the last to speak with Obama before they agreed to go ahead with the mission. In fact, Biden claims that he knew about the raid long before Clinton or any of the cabinet members had been informed. Releasing this new information on how important he has been in Obama's presidency can be interpreted as self-promotion and a possible indicator of announcing his candidacy.

Additionally, President Obama has spoken very passionately of the qualification of Biden when asked his opinion on whether or not he will run. He has boasted that choosing Biden as his vice president was the "smartest decision he's ever made in politics," even better than naming Clinton secretary of state. While Obama does remain neutral when asked the question "Biden or Clinton?" with a response of "I love 'em both. Good try," he nonetheless seems to be promoting Biden more than Clinton. 

To say the least, everyone is eager to find out Biden's final decision. 

Will Biden run for 2016 Presidency? When will he announce his candidacy? Will he wait and risk not being on all of the ballots? If he does run, how do you think he will do? 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/joe-biden-decision-timing-deadline/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/20/politics/joe-biden-osama-bin-laden-raid/

Should Casinos be Allowed to Hold Bets on Elections?

It is a widely known fact that many casinos offer betting and polls on sports game outcomes.  This is a very popular culture at South Point Casino in Las Vegas, along with many other casinos across the nation.  The lead odds maker of the casino, Jimmy Vaccaro, reported that Sunday night is the casino's busiest time because of all the live betting during football games.  Each year in Las Vegas, billions of dollars are being used for betting on sports.  Because of this, he had the idea of expanding the gambling to political elections.  Vaccaro claims that it would be the biggest event of the year, making "the Super Bowl look like a high school football game."

Gambling on political elections is currently illegal throughout the nation, but many casinos would like to change that.  They argue that it is more beneficial to pass laws that legalize, but regulate the gambling, as opposed to the continuity of illegal gambling going on as it is today.  Currently, regulations on gambling are mostly out of the state and national governments' hands, so casinos argue that it would benefit the country to be able to regulate and tax it.

In 2014, the Nevada politician attempted to get a bill passed in order to legalize political gambling, but it was rejected before even making it to the state legislature.

What are your opinions on whether gambling on political elections should be legalized?
What does the previous failure to pass this bill in Nevada say about the probability of this happening in the near future?

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/politics/gambling-on-elections/index.html

Trouble in the South China Sea

China is claiming that it has control over the archipelago in the South China sea and due to this, there should be no freedom of navigation in that region. The Chinese have built military bases on these islands/ rocks and have claimed them as their own. However, the archipelago lies 700 miles from the Chinese mainland. In 2009, the Chinese government submitted a map to the UN that includes the archipelago as Chinese territory, and the UN leaders have not recognized it. Chinese leaders have asserted that historically China has had sovereignty over these “spratly islands”; however, they were not even discovered until the 1930s and they were never a part of Chinese territory. The motives for the Chinese to gain power over this territory are the potential power over trade in the area.

            The United States navy has started a mission to skirt the islands to protect international law and the freedom to navigate and trade in this territory. Since World War II, we have tried to create this freedom of navigation so that anyone could have access to resources and trade. The countries surrounding China are threatened by this assertion that China “owns” this region because if China gets away with it, their commerce with other countries will definitely be affected.

To what extent does china have the authority to claim these rocks/islands? What should we do as a country to make sure that there is freedom of navigation in all parts of the world? If we do nothing, what will be the consequences of China controlling the South China Sea?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/what-lies-in-the-south-china-sea-1444756962

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/10/15/cno-richardson-south-china-sea-provocative/73989210/

Sanders Defends Clinton: Weakness in Strategy?

During the first democratic debate, Hillary Clinton was barraged with questions regarding her scandal using a private email account during her time as Secretary of State.  To the surprise of many, Bernie Sanders jumped in to her defense by stating, "Enough of the emails, let's talk about the real issues facing America."  He thought it was much more important to get to the point of the debate, which is for each candidate to share his or her opinions of the issues.  This was the biggest applause line of the entire debate, yet it wasn't actually about himself or his stances.

Donald Trump later commented on Sanders' choice to side with Clinton by claiming that, "When you're losing that badly you have to go a lot stronger.  [The candidates] had to hit her hard.  They did not do that."  Trump argues that Sanders' strategy should've been to challenge Clinton in any way possible during the debate in order to make himself stand out and have a clear win.  Even if he defended Clinton simply for the purpose of getting back to the important topics, rather than harping on her "damn emails," Trump does not believe that he should have done so because it shows weakness and kindness to his competitor.  

Do you agree that Sanders should not have supported Clinton by defending her about the email scandal?  Does this show weakness in his campaign strategy as Trump believes?
 Does the kindness shown in the democratic debate show kindness and civility or the weakness of the candidates?

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/democratic-debate-2015-best-moments-clinton-sanders/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/democratic-debate-donald-trump-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/index.html

Hillary Clinton and the Benghazi Committee

Two Republican lawmakers have recently spoken about the House Select Committee on Benghazi; the committee in charge of investigating Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. Early this week, Republican House majority leader Kevin McCarthy said in an interview, “Everybody though Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no would have known any of that had happened had we not fought.”

Yesterday on the radio another Republican lawmaker spoke about the Benghazi Committee's true intentions. Richard Hanna, Republican representative of New York, said “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton.” Although Hanna is not part of the committee, his statements combined with McCarthy’s make it difficult to believe that hurting Clinton was not at all part of there intentions.

Clinton’s campaign has quickly responded, driving home the idea that these comments have taken away the credibility of the Benghazi Committee. Her press secretary even said that Republican’s are no longer afraid to hide that this committee is a partisan face.

The Republican party is trying to clean up the damage as McCarthy tries to take back his statements other Republicans are sharing their views. Ron Johnson, senator of Wisconsin, who is also the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee   dismissed their comments, stating that “[he] doesn't share that opinion,” and that the emails have “very serious national security implications.”

Hillary Clinton responded to McCarthy’s statements during Tuesday nights debate, calling the committee an “arm of the Republican National Committee” that was a “partisan vehicle” with the goal of destroying her campaign numbers. However she also said that she will still testify in front of them next Thursday.

Do you think that these comments affect the credibility of the Benghazi Committee? Should Hillary still testify in front of the Committee next Thursday? What effect will these comments on the investigation as a whole?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee/index.html

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/

Medicare Premiums Rise while Social Security Benefits Aren’t

Retirees across the country have been hit with disappointing news. Not only are millions being denied of a cost-of-living increase as a part of Social Security benefits, but there has been an unprecedented rise in Medicare premiums.

Open enrollment for Medicare for 2016 begins Thursday, but Congress is still searching for ways to prevent the premium increase for 2016 Medicare recipients. Years ago, Congress passed a “hold harmless” provision that protects Medicare recipients from having their Social Security checks reduced if Medicare premiums rise but Social Security benefits don’t. However, only 70% will be protected by this, meaning that the projected Medicare cost increases must be extracted from the 30% that aren’t protected. That group includes new beneficiaries of Medicare, federal retirees who don’t receive Social Security payments and about 3.1 million people with higher incomes, that is, those making more than $85,000. In addition, the states are being negatively affected. Arizona’s Medicaid director, Tom Betlach, said the state faces $16 million in additional costs in 2016 due to the projected premium increase. “It’s poor public policy to expect the states to cover the Medicare shortfall,” he said.

The rise in premiums goes hand in hand with Social Security Administration’s announcement on Thursday, which is mainly based off the CPI, or the consumer price index. Currently, the CPI is low and is mainly affected by the increasing gasoline production and low gas prices. When the CPI is low, there is little incentive for Social Security benefits to increase. The problem with this assessment of the CPI is that medical costs continually increase yet consumer prices for many goods including food to housing have not risen enough to increase the benefits. Groups that support retirees believe that the CPI is a poor measure for Social Security benefits since working people spend differently than retirees. For example, the working class tends to spend more on gasoline, health-care, and long-term care where prices rise faster which is excluded from the assessment of CPI. Instead, it focuses on consumer goods such as food and housing where prices rise slowly. Advocates favor using CPI-E (E for elderly), which would take into account the different spending patterns. “The government needs a new approach – one that recognizes the reality of rising costs in many areas, especially health care, that are putting pressure on American seniors,” democratic representative Eliot Engel of NY stated.

Democratic staffers said a freeze or other fix to the premium increases might be considered if an agreement isn’t reached soon.

What do you think about the situation? Is it fair that Social Security is denying millions of cost-of-living benefits while the Medicare premium rises? What do you think is a possible solution to this problem?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/medicare-rates-set-to-soar-for-many-seniors-1444920052

http://time.com/money/4073169/medicare-premiums-rising-social-security-not/

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/10/09/sickening-increase-in-medicare-premiums/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/10/15/lack-of-inflation-is-bad-news-for-social-security-recipients/

Obama Announces to Extend U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan

It has been 14 years since the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on the United States. Following the tragic events of that day, the terrorist threat has strongly swept through the U.S. in the past decade and a half. President Obama announced today that although the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan ended in December and only 9,800 troops remain, he has decided to halt this withdrawal and implement 5,500 more troops across Afghanistan. As far as his motives go Obama plans to further achieve the military mission as far as training Afghans, preventing attacks, and respecting human rights. He plans for 9,800 of troops stationed there until the end of his term in 2017. President Obama explained that the fragility of the United States and its security is at high risk and for the well being of this nation he must extend military presence in Afghanistan. As Afghan forces grow stronger and need to protect themselves from the Taliban, he believes this will offer lasting progress in Afghanistan.  Obama stated that he "will not allow Afghanistan to be a safe haven for terrorists to attack our nation again" and went on to reiterate his motives in expressing that although "Americas combat mission in Afghanistan may be over our commitment to Afghanistan and its people endures." Despite public opinion, Obama also stated that his support for the Afghan government and its civilians continues and he wishes to prevent attacks unto them and our homeland as well. He explained that military presence will allow for protecting the future of Afghanistan and also the national security of the United States as a whole. In the past 14 years military presence in Afghanistan has pushed the Taliban back and provided a safer nation for its people. However, Obama sees the constant threat of terrorism on the Afghan people and feels obligated to protect the innocent. However this announcement has aggravated many. President Obama's initial promises of his presidency were that he was to end both wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. However he has evidently not followed through with his promise but expresses that he has reason to implement more troops in Afghani land. He ended by expressing "Every single day, Afghan forces are out there fighting and dying to protect their country. If they were to fail, it would endanger the security of us all".

Do you agree or disagree with Obama's intentions and actions?
Does this protect our country or is this a notion of war?
Has Obama not followed through with promises or is he providing for the well being of this nation?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/world/asia/obama-troop-withdrawal-afghanistan.html?_r=0

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4559917172001/obama-us-commitment-to-afghanistan-endures/?playlist_id=928378949001#sp=show-clips

Who Actually Won the Democratic Debate?

While the news outlets may say that Clinton was the the actual winner of the debates, when you look to social media outlets, they tell a different story. Bernie Sanders was the most talked about candidate during this time, and when online surveys were conducted to see who they felt had won, Sanders won 82% of the vote.

Both Clinton and Sanders had a great debate. Clinton needed to demonstrate her ability within the Democratic Party, specifically that the party does not need Biden to come sweeping in to save them from her candidacy. As the only woman on the stage she argued forcefully for equal pay, paid family leave, and reproductive rights. She also was able to succinctly summarize her campaign pitch when she responded to Anderson Cooper´s hard hitting question about her tendency to flip-flop, ¨I'm a progressive, but a progressive who likes to get things done.¨ Although later on when asked about the Keystone Pipeline, she had a slight stumble when explaining her position on the issue stating, ¨I never took a position on the Keystone until I took a position on Keystone.¨ Overall she came across as a more moderate choice to Sanders far-left feelings on policy issues. This is likely what prompted the news outlets to give the win to Hillary - she had the most to lose and was able to solidify her stance within her party.

Sanders on the other hand started out debate by addressing many people's main concern with his candidacy: the fact that he declares himself a democratic socialist. In his explanation he was able to clearly pinpoint his anger at the immense economic inequality within the nation as well as the power that the few wealthy have over those in a worse of position - the main reasoning behind his position. Although when asked if he was a capitalist or not, Bernie did not directly answer (in doing so he may have alienated many voters who feel capitalism is intrinsic to the American way of life), but instead chose to go back to his main issues of wealth inequality and Wall Street's ´reckless behavior´. Furthermore Sanders lived up to expectations when he spoke little about himself and more about policy matters. This was highlighted when he came to Hillary´s aid when saying, ¨The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn e-mails… Let´s talk about the real issues facing America.¨ Like Clinton, Sanders was given a lot of air time to discuss his stance on numerous issues, like the expansion of Social Security, Black Lives Matter, and his ideas for free college. Although when the questions started to shift towards gun control, his answers seemed to make him look like who he claims he's not: a work day politician who looks for compromises to keep his base. This provided an opening for O'Malley to jump and point out how he could protect hunters and sports gunmen while still passing stronger gun regulations. Additionally he struggled when discussing foreign policy, specifically in regards to Putin, whom he felt would end up regretting his decisions and change tune, a point Anderson Cooper even questioned. Overall though many people agreed with Sander´s points and were actively talking about (and looking up) him online.

Regardless, both candidates showed well in the debate. But their answers helped to clarify their different perspectives, specifically how they view how change is going to come about. ¨Sander´s is: It´s going to take a movement. Clinton´s: It´s going to take a President.¨

Who do you think won the Democratic debate? Are the news outlets or social media right?

How is going to impact the race?

Are the news outlets or social media more in-tune with the voters? Is either an accurate representation of the way Americans feel?

Sources:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/123115/why-bernie-sanders-lost-debate

https://www.thenation.com/article/who-won-the-democratic-debate-progressives-hands-down/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/14/8-questions-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask-about-democratic-socialism/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/the-candidate-breaking-through-in-the-democratic-debate-bernie-sanders/