Discriminatory Laws Get Dunked on in Two States

Jonathan Lovitz, National Gay and Lesbian Chamber of Commerce Vice President of External Affairs, would say, “the best thing you can do for the bottom line is inclusion.” With this view in mind, it's no wonder that many corporations have been against the recent slew of discriminatory laws introduced in state legislatures in the last year alone. Big businesses like Netflix and Coca-Cola were a great help in Georgia when they pressured Governor Nathan Deal to veto a bill discriminating against lgbtqia+ consumers. They threatened to leave Georgia, taking countless jobs with them. It was this boycott that brought Governor Nathan Deal to his decision. This law, that was alleged to protect the faith-based community in Georgia would have given Georgia businesses the right to turn  away homosexual customers. The South Dakota legislature attempted to pass a similarly discriminatory law.Many businesses and organizations, including the Child Welfare League of America, united to protest it. Governor Dennis Daugaard struck down this bill which infringed on the protections that transgender people, and those of various gender identities, have been afforded. This law would dictate public school bathroom usage by chromosomes and anatomy, thereby barring transgender students from using the restroom matching their identity. Do you think the aid of corporations was necessary for these outcomes? How do you think that these types of inflammatory laws get passed through the legislature so easily a veto is required? How would any of these measures proposed by these state legislatures actually be beneficial to anybody except bigots?

Sources:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/28/georgia-gov-to-veto-controversial-religious-liberty-bill-that-prompted-corporate-threats.html

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-hollywood-reacts-georgia-anti-gay-law-veto-story.html

http://www.hrc.org/blog/24-hours-all-eyes-on-south-dakota-as-gov.-daugaard-weighs-legislation-attac

Obama Lands in Cuba

Obama is the first sitting president since 1928 to land in Cuba, which is a “dramatic personal demonstration of his core foreign policy principle of engaging America's enemies.” It is a bold leap for Obama to step into Cuba in hopes of opening new economic channels for businesses and encouraging the Cuban government to grant more freedoms for its people.

Obama carefully planned his actions through Cuba and interacted with the Cuban people. He even tweeted “¿Que bolá Cuba? Just touched down here, looking forward to meeting and hearing directly from the Cuban people.” Obama tried to connect with the Cuban people by saying, Que bolá, which is an informal Cuban greeting.  In addition, “Obama dined at a "paladar" -- one of hundreds of privately-run restaurants that only recently became permissible in the state-run economy. Those types of businesses -- along with new investments from American firms -- give U.S. officials hope that Cuba is on a path to finally opening its economy after decades of isolation.” His visit to Cuba was carefully planned to encourage the Cuban government to open its country to the world. The Cuban government “hopes the two-day visit will allow it to reap benefits without ceding control, while dissidents on the island want it to speed the pace of change.”

An embassy has also been opened in an attempt to improve relations between America and Cuba. Obama commented on the new embassy by stating  "For the first time, the American flag flies over an embassy, and having the embassy here means we can more effectively advance our interests and values and understand the Cuban people and their concerns".

Many dissidents are happy about Obama’s arrival in Cuba. “Jose Daniel Ferrer, a Cuban dissident… said Obama could act like President Ronald Reagan, demanding immediate improvements in human rights just as Reagan demanded the Soviet Union "tear down this wall." However, this is a drastic change that is not likely to happen and Ferrer  agreed that “even incremental change is beneficial to the island's politically oppressed citizenry. "Obama's visit is good for the people and good for the cause," he said.”

What do you think about Obama’s arrival in Cuba?

Do you think his arrival will successfully encourage the Cuban government to change?

Do you think the trip was a waste of time?

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/world/americas/cuba-obama-visit-havana-dissidents.html?_r=1

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/20/obama-touches-down-havana-launching-history-making-visit/82050936/

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/muchas-gracias-yes-we-did-obama-declares-cuba-embassy-n542326

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/20/politics/obama-cuba-arrival-change/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-cubans-wait-for-obama-tension-and-excitement-on-havanas-streets/2016/03/20/78726756-eed1-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html

Tensions Rise in the Asia-Pacific as the U.S. Sends in Stealth Bombers

          Just last week North Korea tested two short-range missiles and bragged of its accomplishments of miniaturizing its nuclear warhead to fit on ballistic missiles. America’s response? The U.S. Air Force deployed three of its B-2 stealth bombers to Asia and Pacific. These bombers are top of the line weapons. They are a low-observable, strategic, long-range, heavy bomber capable of penetrating sophisticated and dense air-defense shields as well as completing missions at altitudes as high as 50,000 feet. They will be kept in Australia and the goal, according to a release from U.S. Strategic Command, is to “integrate and conduct training with ally and partner force, and conduct a radio communications check with a U.S. air operations center.” With North Korea on a mission to one-up the United States and South Korea, the commander of U.S. Pacific Air Forces, General Lori J. Robinson, said in the press release “Recent events demonstrate the continued need to provide consistent and credible air power throughout the Indo-Asia-Pacific region… Strategic bomb deployments ensure our ability to protect power at a time and place of our choice and develop strong interoperability with out regional allies and partners.” Basically what Robinson is saying is that the  United States must continue to show its strength to keep the respect of other nations. 
              Earlier this month there was a similar instance from the U.S. Navy in which they sent the aircraft carrier USS John S. Stennis and its strike group into the South China Sea, where Chinese ships were operating close by.  On this, Robinson was quoted saying, “We would encourage anybody in the region and around the world to fly and sail in international air space in accordance with international rules and norms. We would encourage all nations in the region to do just that, just as the United States is doing.” 
              In my opinion I want the United States to be respected and agree that in many cases intimidation is a powerful tool because it can at times prevent violent action from being taken. However the United States has already well established how capable we are. In the Win/Gallup International’s Annual Global End of the Year Survey the United States came out on top as the greatest threat to world peace among all nations. To me, we are teetering on a line between showing our strength and being reckless. 
               What do you think? Is this earning respect or just reckless intimidation? Should we be involving ourselves in the first place? How do you think this years candidates would answer if given this question in a debate?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.htmlhttp://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/b-2-bombers-sent-to-asia-pacific/index.html

http://www.ibtimes.com/us-talks-deploy-b-1-bombers-expand-b-52-missions-australia-amid-growing-tensions-2332981?rel=rel2

http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/us-seen-as-greatest-threat-to-world-peaceand-the-nation-most-would-like-to-move-to-140102?news=852058

Clinton wins Missouri Democratic primary and Sanders concedes

Hillary Clinton has narrowly won the Missouri Democratic primary, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders says he won't request a recount. Clinton led Sanders by 1,531 votes, though some absentee votes still need to be counted. The announcement means Clinton swept all five states that voted in Tuesday night's primaries. A Sanders spokesman said that the Vermont senator won't request a recount because he wants to "save the taxpayers of Missouri some money." A noble move by Bernie in a surely harsh time. Although Sanders does appear to be in a tough spot, his campaign is not over as he moves into Arizona, Idaho, Utah, Wisconsin, New York and California. Sanders is perhaps the most publicized “underdog” campaign and continues to show it by giving Clinton a run for her money at a vast majority of primaries. Although Sanders is making an impressive attempt, is it enough to secure a nomination? Is Bernie Sanders campaign for president finished?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-wins-missouri-democratic-primary/story?id=37729452

What people around the world think of Donald Trump

In a recent article by CNN, citizens from countries around the world were asked of their opinion on the GOP frontrunner, Mr. Donald Trump. While responses were varied, he seems to have a few supporters in Israel and Russia, calling him a strong leader who isn't afraid to do something. But beyond those few supporters the results were truly horrifying for the Trumpster. Among the most frequent responses were calling trump a "businessman", "rich guy", and even "entertainer". The bulk of foreign responses portrayed trump in a negative light and shed fear on the prospect of him running the country. Many felt internatonal relations would be horrible and even that the possibility of world war three was not far off. With Trumps presidency seeming more and more likely every day, what does this mean for the world? And what does this mean for the world's people? Will Donald Trump negatively affect the United States image in the world?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/world-reacts-donald-trump/index.html

North Korea Launches Missiles

Reports are beginning to surface about North Korea launching ballistic missiles off the east cost of the Korean peninsula. The launch was confirmed by the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff, and was also confirmed by U.S. officials. This event is a little concerning considering that It comes one week after North Korea fired two missiles from North Hwanghae province toward the sea east of the Korean Peninsula. The question that arises is is that the U.S. has around 17,000 U.S. military personnel working with 300,000 South Korean troops in an attempt to prevent North Korea from trying to launch any attacks against South Korea or neighboring regions. However, North Korea has not been listening to anyone, especially considering the U.N. earlier this year created a list of sanctions and regulations that North Korea must follow, and they have not recognized the regulations whatsoever. Furthermore, on top of everything there are claims being made that North Korea has miniaturized nuclear warheads comes after they reported a successful test of a hydrogen bomb in February. North Korea is a country that should not be taken lightly, and measure should be put into place to prevent them from performing any acts of terror. Some questions to ask are: What is the best solution to ensuring North Korea does not attack anyone? Should the U.N. actually try to get involved this time, instead of just giving North Korea a slap on the wrist. In President Obama's last days in office, should he still try to make an effort regarding this crisis. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/asia/north-korea-missile-launch/index.html

President Obama's Final Campaign

President Obama is approaching the end of his second term, but before he is out of office he is "running one final campaign". Since the death of former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, there has been debate over whether or not Obama should be able to appoint a new Justice. Although it is clearly stated that it is within his powers as president to do so, congress is making it incredibly difficult, specifically the Republican Senators. After enjoying the benefits of having a republican majority among the Justices, they are not very quick to vote in Judge Merrick B. Garland, a democrat. 

Obama called in all of the troops to fight this, and is using similar tactics to how he won the 2012 presidential election. This "strategy call" requires the work of supporters and activists who want Garland appointed as much as Obama does, and he and his staff hope that with enough pressure put on congress by the people and the media, they will give in. The president called back people that worked on his campaign four years ago, such as Stephanie Cutter, Amy Brundage, Julianna Smoot,  Paul Tewes,  and Katie Beirne Fallon. This team is made up of experienced campaign managers, chief of fundraising, field operative, legislative director, and aides that are loyal to the president and are familiar with how he works. What this team is put in place to do is collect opposition research in response to the attacks made on Garland, solicit donations from mainly democrats, and develop advertising that puts Garland in a more positive light than that of which the Republican senators have been using. Obama is launching this as a full blown campaign so that the process is made more fair and more accurately represents the American people. “Starting Monday, in fact, the Judicial Crisis Network, a conservative group, will begin a $2 million television, radio and digital media campaign in New Hampshire, Ohio, Colorado, North Dakota and West Virginia,” says Carrie Severino. This campaign can work in Obama's favor, but it also has the potential to be a complete waste of funds and backfire completely.

So what do you think, will this team help Obama to get Judge Garland appointed? Do you think it's strange that this team is working to collect opposition research in response to the attacks made on Garland? More importantly, how will the Republican senators react and respond to this campaign?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-campaign-veterans-court-nominee-stephanie-cutter.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Contingent on a Contested Convention: Does Kasich Have Any Business in the Race?

For weeks, Ohio Governor John Kasich has essentially promised his supporters and the American public that he would win the winner-take-all Ohio primary. With the 66 delegates he commandeered Tuesday, he is squarely in the race -- regardless of trailing Trump by 530 delegates. So with 1,061 delegates left, how can Kasich possibly be squarely in the race?
In a brokered or contested convention scenario, if Trump does not secure the 1,237 delegates needed to win the 'ship all on his own, the GOP's assigned delegates will go to a 2nd round of voting at the convention. Essentially, all the committed delegates will be "released" and will be able to vote for whoever they want - maybe even Mitt Romney.
As we know, the GOP is not necessarily fond of Mr. Trump. He couldn't possibly be further from the GOP establishment, and one would be hard pressed to consider him to be a true Republican. If you go off of that thinking, Kasich wouldn't be a long shot in a brokered scenario. In fact, some might even think he's a potential favorite over the un-presidential Trump, and the all-too-polarizing Cruz. Current convention rules say that a candidate needs to win a majority in eight states during primaries to have a shot at a nomination (Kasich only has Ohio), but the rules might be revised for this zany election (Politico).
Kasich could definitely shine through as the "voice of reason," and it is definitely possible that a Republican establishment man such as himself could edge Hillary. However, it remains to be seen that he will have a shot at the contested convention. In addition to the the potential rules issue addressed above, Trump has said there will be "riots" if he is not the nominee as a result of a brokered convention (CNN), and it can be assumed that he will reign down legal hellfire in this scenario.

So, can Kasich somehow be "the guy" for the GOP, or is he dead in the water? Your thoughts on Kasich vs. the GOP leading Cruz & Trump? Do any have a shot at Hillary? What are your thoughts on Trumps comments regarding the brokered convention?

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-cruz-kasich-convention-220846
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/16/politics/donald-trump-ted-cruz-brokered-convention/

House Approves Motion to File Immigration Brief in SCOTUS Case

This Thursday, the Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives challenged President Barack Obama's change to immigration enforcement rules via an executive order. This allows House Speaker Paul Ryan to file an amicus brief, (a "friend of the court" brief if you remember that chapter) in the case on immigration currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Following party lines closely, the motion passed 234-186, with five Republicans opposing it.

As the debates have shown, immigration is a key issue this election season. Both Republicans and Democrats alternate between placing blame on each other and on Congress for failing to address the issue properly.

Ryan argued that the motion to issue a brief to the court is more about filling legislative responsibility than anything having to do with politics, as usual.

"This is not a question of whether we are for or against a certain policy. Members who are here making immigration policy arguments are missing the whole point here. This comes down to a much more fundamental question. It is about the integrity of our Constitution," Ryan argued.

House Democrats immediately said otherwise, arguing that it has a lot to do with the despised-by-the-establishment GOP frontrunner, Donald "The Don" Trump.

"Sadly, there's not much difference between Donald Trump and House Republicans when it comes to a record of appalling anti-immigrant statements and an agenda of discrimination," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said at her weekly press conference.

Ryan was not alone. Recently, more than 200 House and Senate Democrats filed their own amicus briefs. They were in support of the President's executive actions that allowed children of undocumented workers to remain in the United States. They are now arguing that Republicans are stepping beyond their responsibility, forcing a political agenda and wasting House time.

The GOP maintained that Obama stepped past the legislature, giving them a cause to act.

Source:
http://www.latinpost.com/articles/118388/20160314/pro-immigration-groups-fight-paul-ryans-plan-to-file-supreme-court-brief-against-president-obamas-immigration-orders.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/paul-ryan-immigration-house-republicans-donald-trump/index.html

John Kerry and the US Department of State Officially Declares That Isis Is Guilty of Genocide

John Kerry announced yesterday (Thursday the 16th) that the U.S. Department of State recognized the atrocities committed against minority groups such as the Kurdish in northern Iraq and Syria and Shiite Muslims in southern Iraq. This is the first time since 2004 that the United States has officially declared a group "genocidal." This comes as no surprise to anyone, even Kerry who announced it. In early 2014, Kerry had stated that the rise of the Islamic State showed "all the warning signs of genocide." And it was also obvious to those voting in the House, as the vote was 393-0 favoring the declaration. In his final words of the press conference Kerry put it bluntly, stating that "[ISIS] is genocidal by self-acclimation, by ideology, and by practice."

So what? Why does it matter what we call them? At least on an emotional level, this shows respect to the minority groups victimized by atrocities in their rightful lands, as the United States is willing to call their suffering what it actually is, a genocide of their people. In addition, however, this declaration puts additional pressure on the White House to act and puts pressure internationally to assemble a more passionate coalition against ISIS (if that is even possible, considering the UN had already declared crimes committed by ISIS genocidal). The declaration by the State Department also establishes ISIS as the main focus of counter-terrorism in the world, which is also fairly redundant. What is most important about this declaration is that it forces President Barack Obama to make a decision on how aggressive his actions against ISIS will be and if he will change his approach to counter-terrorism because it has become more than just terrorism in these countries. It would also greatly encourage an increased ease of access by refugees into the United States as well as those who follow in our footsteps. Other than the political ramifications, there is no legal entity or procedure for dealing with an official genocide so technically there is nothing forcing the government to change its approach.

Here are my questions then.

Are there any real ramifications of this, if so, what are they? Is this a meaningful step towards multilateralism or a signal that the U.S. is behind the times?

If you do think that this is unnecessarily redundant, then why did John Kerry and the State Department feel it should be said anyway? Why does the government feel it is necessary to say these things if they have no legal obligation to act upon it?

If you do think it is necessary, will there be any reason for the White House to change its procedures against ISIS? What are your theories on how our foreign policy will change?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/17/politics/us-iraq-syria-genocide/index.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/isis-genocide-obama/474087/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-john-kerry-obama-administration-declares-isis-guilty-of-genocide/

EPA Administrator and Michigan Governor Asked to Resign Over Flint Water Crisis

A third hearing at House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on the Flint Water Crisis has called on both the EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Michigan governor Rick Snyder to resign due to lack of action in preventing the crisis. Though both the EPA Administrator and the governor have no intention of resigning, they continue to argue over whether the state or federal regulators are more to blame for delays in addressing the crisis last year. Flint’s drinking water became contaminated with lead after the city began using the Flint River in April 2014 without using a chemical to control the corrosion of aging pipes.

Republicans on the committee were mostly angry at Ms. McCarthy for failing to act more urgently last summer when she learned of the city’s lead problem. Representative Jason Chaffetz (R), the committee’s chairman, criticized Ms. McCarthy for waiting until January to take action despite the fact that there was a memo written in June 2015 by an EPA water official citing high lead levels at several Flint homes and the city’s failure at implementing corrosion control. Ms. McCarthy defended her actions by blaming federal rules that require states and the EPA to work together to ensure safe drinking water systems. She said that though the EPA began to learn of the scope of the contamination last summer, it was the state that waited until December to implement corrosion control. McCarthy also said that the information provided by water officials at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality to the EPA’s Region 5 office was confusing, incomplete and incorrect, delaying the agency’s ability to understand the gravity of the situation. Democrats, on the other hand, blamed the role of state regulators under Mr. Snyder. He appointed emergency managers who took control of the city, leaving its mayor and city council with little decision-making power. However, on Thursday, Mr. Snyder put more of the blame on the EPA, saying that “inefficient, ineffective and unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA allowed this disaster to continue unnecessarily.”

Ms. McCarthy said her agency is working to revise the outdated federal regulations rules intended to lessen the risks of lead in drinking water, but that the rules as they stand now could have prevented Flint’s water crisis had the state and city acted properly. Nevertheless, Republicans blamed her for a lack of focus on the water rule while writing thousands of other regulations.

Here we can clearly see the portrayal of bureaucracies in the media. When they do something wrong, they are blamed for it, but otherwise remain unnoticed. What do you think of this situation? Who is actually to blame? McCarthy defended herself and the EPA by saying that she was restricted by government regulations and received confusing information possibly due to fragmentation. Does this justify her actions and remove the blame from the EPA?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-federal-officials-clash-over-flint-water-crisis-1458219959

Recap: Clinton, Trump Pile Up Wins on Key Primary Night

          Super Tuesday 2.0 was full of surprises, with Kasich successfully winning his State of Ohio, and Trump winning the other 4.  Or on the Democratic side with Clinton winning all 5 states only increasing her lead in the Democratic race.  In addition to all this winning, there was Marco Rubio who desperately needed a win in his home State of Florida in order to stay afloat in the Republican race.  However, he lost by quite a large margin only receiving 27% of the votes and no delegates, while trump won 48.5% of the votes and all 99 delegates.  As a result, Rubio has now suspended his campaign for now and it is unclear if or when he will resume it.  He hasn't dropped out of the race yet but it looks like there isn't much hope left for him in this race.  The most meaningful win came with Kasich taking Ohio by storm winning 46.8% of the votes and 66 delegates.  This win proves that Trump is not unbeatable and that there is still hope for other candidates to make a run.  There is no denying Trumps the favorite at this point to win the ticket with his ample lead over the other Republican candidates.  However, this win from Kasich proves that not all hope is lost.  On  the Democratic side it was a landslide with Clinton sweeping Sanders in all 5 states.  It was expected that Clinton would win the majority of the states but I doubt people were expecting from her.  Clinton definitely made a statement on Tuesday night and is hoping it can help propel her to victory.  For Sanders the question is if he can put this loss behind him and make a push to challenge Clinton.

What does Kasich's win mean for the other remaining candidates in the Republican race?

How can Sanders recover form this devastating loss?  Is there still hope left for him?

What will Rubio do now after losing Florida? will he drop out? will he continue his candidacy?

What picutre does Tuesday paint for the Party's futures?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/2016-candidates-aim-change-race-huge-tuesday-primaries-loom-n537966

          

Bye Bye Lil Marco

After his Florida loss to Trump, Marco Rubio has suspended his campaign.

The Junior United States Senator from Florida stopped his campaign for the presidency after Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, won 45.8% of the vote while Rubio only won 27% (Cruz won 17.1% and Kasich won 6.8%, respectively). 

Rubio had promoted his message of unity in the country and become the “young” candidate who was going to unify the country. He had often discussed his Cuban roots and how his parents had always worked as hard as they could to provide for themselves.

"While we are on the right side, this year, we will not be on the winning side,” he said to a crowd as he suspended his campaign. When he congratulated Trump on his win, he was met with many boos. 

Rubio had always been in the third, Trump leading and Cruz being his close second. He had been attacking Trump since February, from calling out his lack of strong policy to the size of his hands. 

Now that Rubio is out of the race, who do you think will win the Republican nominate? Who do you think will drop out? Where do you think Rubio’s voters will go?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/15/politics/marco-rubio-drops-out/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/florida
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2016/03/15/marco-rubio-suspends-campaign-after-losing-florida/

Comedy reaches those who news can't

 Satire has often raised awareness of  corruption and political blunder for time immemorial, from the times of ancient Rome, to Shakespeare's days. Most recently, this proud tradition has endured through the lampooning and imitation of news sources. These shows and publications are both entertaining, and often informative. Consequently, many people, overwhelmingly young people, get their news from comedic satire. I myself kept up with current events through watching Jon Stewart, when he was at the Daily Show. Comedians are highlighting the most disconcerting aspect of Trump's campaign, and providing cathartic laughs in desperate political times. Not only do the jokes shed light on the situation for those who don't normally watch the news, the hyperbole they present are ridiculous, yet illuminating, which contributes to an easier understanding of politics in general. Trump seems himself, if a bit more blunt and open with his prejudices, Ben Carson seems creepier than usual, Sanders is a bit more bombastic, and viewers have a good time while being exposed to issues they might not have been very aware of. Trevor Noah, as part of a bit on the Daily show, has made both eerily accurate comparisons of Trump to African dictators, and Trump to fascists. Admittedly, the farcical nature of the "fake-news show" means that all news has to be taken with a grain of salt, but so does the biased nature of Fox news or MSNBC. This wave of fun and politically aware prime time broadcasting is encouraging, because even if people only watch for the jokes, they're still taking in political events and the stances candidates take.
How do you feel about this proud tradition of satire? Do you think that this assessment is accurate?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/08/04/arts/television/jon-stewart-daily-show-9-essential-moments.html?action=click&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&module=MostEmailed&version=Full&region=Marginalia&src=me&pgtype=article&_r=0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FPrJxTvgdQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg0pO9VG1J8
http://www.esquire.com/entertainment/news/a42977/snl-carson-trump-cold-open/

Labor Protests Multiply in China as Economy Slows, Worrying Leaders

With the expanding population in China, the workplace has taken a major hit in that the government has to be able to build the China's economy and the way to do that is by companies producing more and selling more. However, with the companies must be able to pay the workers as well as making a profit. The only way that this can happen is by making the wages lower in order to make make up the loss of money through expenses. This does not float well with the millions of workers that already don't have a lot to start off with and now with the addition of slashed wages. So what do workers do when the feel that the government and companies aren't treating them adequately? They go on strikes. When this happens, business slows down, which means the economy slows down with it. In China, strikes and protests against businesses, the slow progression of its economy and money being lost, leaders of other countries do not see this as a good thing and are starting to worry about this epidemic.  For the last two decades, the decline in work production in China has been slowly increasing while the number of protests and strikes have multiplied.  According to one study, roughly 3 million workers could lose their jobs in the next two years if the government decides to cut the work force. In addition, about 1.8 million people have been already laid off, which shows the dramatic downfall of the Chinese economy. This does not give confidence for other countries that China is a good trading partner and that may deter from countries in investing with China. 

The sudden rise in number of protests/strikes China may have to come up with a compromise that will not only satisfy the displeased workers, but might have to cut down the harsh regulations/laws China has put on its work force. If China ever wants to have economical prosperity, they will have to be able to limit the amount of workplace strikes and adapt to the ever expanding population without harming the work place. Yet every time there is a strike or protest, President Xi Jinping doesn't feel compromise is necessary, so he decides to squash the rebels and makes companies pay for them. This is not how a country should resolve its economic problems rather they should find a more diligent way to conquer the issues that strangle the country's progression. 

After knowing that this is happening in China, do you think this will affect the presidential race, if at all? Do you think that other countries, like the US, should get involved in fixing up China's mess? If so, what can other countries do? Lastly, how do you think (with the current state of China's economy) will affect the US moving forward?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/15/world/asia/china-labor-strike-protest.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Ohio Looms Large in Both Races on Tuesday

March 14, 2016

         As the presidential nomination race comes to the 3/4th point, there have been a lot of surprising and shocking events that could alter the way that public views either of the presidential nominees. Still, the public is divided between a racist, narcissistic Republican and a Democratic party that only has two candidates that seem to be less attractive. The unsettling images of a Donald Trump rally that was cancelled due to the overwhelming amount of supporters and protestors that clashed before it was set to happen caused many people to wonder what the future would hold if Donald Trump became president. There is still plenty of time for one Republican candidate to challenge and even win against Trump, but the tie do it is now. With the upcoming primary election in Ohio, many people speculate whether or not Trump will be able to pull off a victory in Ohio.  If Trump does in fact win Ohio, he will be able to obtain most of the 424 delegate votes that are up for grabs. However, there is one candidate that might be able to overwhelm Trump and come out victorious: John Kasich. In two recent polls, they show that Kasich has the edge over Trump, but of Kasich does not win the state of Ohio he will withdraw from the race. For the past week and a half, most of Trump's rallies have been unorganized and ended with an escort from the police to avoid clashing with the numerous protesters.  For the Republican party, Ohio will signal whether or not Trump has enough support to be able to go all the way. 

      On the other hand, the Democratic race is somewhat mixed, but most of the signs point to Hillary Clinton being the presidential nominee. However, with the recent surge of victories for Bernie Sanders, the race might be tighter than expected. With people in the midwest, those votes will most likely go to Bernie while on the east coast, Hillary will probably win the support in those areas. In conclusion, Ohio is now the most critical state for a presidential nominee candidate to win if he/she wants to be able to have a chance of reaching the next election. 

How do you think the primary election in Ohio play out? If Kasich does end up winning Ohio, how will this affect the rest of the race? Lastly, with all the clashes between supporters and protesters of Trump, do you believe that America is finally coming to the senses and realizing that Trump may not actually be a worthy presidential nominee? Do you think in the end that the protesters will out number the supporters? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/us/politics/ohio-primary.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

  

Make Guacamole Great Again: A Closer Look at Campaign Stores

Campaign stores play a key role in elections, and this election season is no exception.  Many have become an incredibly recognizable part of the campaign itself such as Trump’s bright red “Make America Great Again” hat.  But, some of the items being sold are very odd to say the least.  Let’s start with Republican Candidate Ted Cruz, who sells a shirt saying “I applied to Trump University and all I got was this shirt.”  Cruz supporters can also buy a #45 football jersey with the last name Cruz or an ugly Christmas sweater with Ted’s face on it.  Hillary Clinton’s store features a t-shirt called the “Everyday Pantsuit Tee”.  Marco Rubio’s has a $30 Ru(BAE)o shirt for those looking to call a Presidential candidate Bae (He also sells a sticker).  Rubio also sells a broken Trump watch which has the description, “AS SEEN ON TV: "If Donald Trump hadn’t inherited $200 million, he’d be selling watches like these in Manhattan." -Marco
NOTE: You won’t actually get a broken Trump watch, but your $10 donation will help Marco stop him.”  But, the most cringeworthy item of all belongs to Jeb Bush.  Jeb is selling a blank black guacamole bowl for a ridiculous $75 because Jeb and Carmela enjoy making guacamole.

The role that campaign stores play I believe serves two purposes, to raise awareness/recognition for the candidate and to raise money for their campaign.  But, some of the items sold may be going a little too far.

I leave you all with a few questions to discuss.  Do you think that campaign stores fill the dual role of raising awareness and money?  Why do you think many of the campaigns have items that are so out there?  Are you in the market for a guacamole bowl?

Drug Abuse Bill Passed in Senate

And now, a break from your regularly scheduled Donald Trump news. The Senate has passed a bill 94 to 1 to respond to the drug crisis in the U.S., which has killed more Americans than car crashes. It is the largest of its kind since 2008.

In the Republican-controlled Senate, this bill is a huge help in elections for Republican senators. In particular, Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Rob Portman of Ohio, whose states have been hit hard by the opioid epidemic, helped to lead the bill towards approval. Measures of the bill include:

Allocating funds for treatment programs for addicts, including jailed ones
Strengthens monitoring systems for prescription drug abuse
Expands availability of Narcan (shoutout to wellness with Meriwether)
Increases disposal sites for prescription drug abusers

Some Democrats in the Senate, like Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, have called out the bill for not providing $600 million to pay for some of the programs the bill creates, saying, "What good are additional programs if they aren't adequately funded?"

Excitingly, the massive epidemic has led to cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, which is nowadays rarer than a Jeb supporter. In the House, however, the bill's fate is uncertain. There is not strong Republican support, but many committees are working on it. The House is in recess this week, so don't expect any progress soon.

What do you think?
Is this bill a good idea?
Should the extra $600 million have been allocated?
Is this a stepping stone for further programs?
Will the bill pass in the House?

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/11/us/politics/senate-drug-abuse-bill.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/07/us/drug-overdose-deaths-in-the-us.html

Cruz Receives His First Senate Endorsement

Today, Ted Cruz received his first endorsement in Senate from Utah Senator, Mike Lee. This will possibly be beneficial to the Cruz Campaign in tonight's Republican debate but will also land a pretty hard punch to the Rubio Campaign. What makes this one endorsement so influential is that, in a domino affect, once one senator pledges his support to Cruz other GOP senators are likely fall in line with him. If this were to happen, it would effectively bring more attention towards Cruz and away from his fellow candidates Trump and Rubio.
“Ted Cruz has been a tireless defender of the Constitution and the founding principles that have made this the greatest country the world has ever known,” Lee said earlier today. Now I don't particularly agree with Senator Cruz's views nor do I support him as a candidate for the presidency, but, as many people would agree, the desperately needs a candidate with a stronger support base to go up against Trump. 

What this election is coming down to, as it seems, is this question: Who would you rather have as the Republican candidate? A loud mouth with radical ideology or the other guy? All we can do now is figure out who the other guy is going to be.  

What do you guys think? Was this a good move for Senator Lee to make? Was Cruz the right candidate to endorse? Will this be enough to stop the "unstoppable" candidate? 

Sources:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-earns-first-senate-endorsement-utah-sen-mike-lee/

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2016/03/10/mike-lee-becomes-first-us-senator-to-endorse-ted-cruz/

Does Trump Foster Violence?-Trump rally attendee charged with assault

On Thursday, at a Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina a 78 year old man by the name of John McGraw punched a black male protester in the face and was later arrested and charged for the assault. Many have come to question whether or not the actions of McGraw were motivated by Trump’s outspoken bigotry toward several racial and ethnic groups, or if Trump simply fosters the idea that violence can be justified if there is an enemy. McGraw’s motives are unclear however in a statement he made, it can be assumed that he was driven by racial discrimination. He stated that "Yes, he deserved it. The next time we see him, we might have to kill him. We don't know who he is. He might be with a terrorist organization," McGraw said in an interview conducted after the rally but before he was charged. He added that the protester was not acting "like an American" and said it was unclear if he was a part of ISIS.

These words do not seem unfamiliar, because ah yes, Donald Trump himself has made similar remarks in regards to the idea that people who protest may certainly be terrorists and that they should essentially be exterminated from American society.

Now this raises many questions, and certainly a great deal of concern. It is alarming to see such a hate fueled man rise in popularity among the American people when our country is essentially a symbol of social equality and freedom. Also, to see supporters of Trump commit acts of violence, and with pride, is especially concerning. Because of this, if Trump were to win the presidential election this value that the majority of American's hold true, would seem to be ignored by Trump. If Trump, who holds such bigotry for certain groups steps into office, America as we know it, will be a very different place.

Does Trump motivate and foster violence and bigotry?

Is he the cause of such extremist views?

Has he fostered an environment where people are outward racists and discriminatory?

Is Trump a disgrace to American morals or is he an honest man speaking his mind?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/10/politics/donald-trump-protestor-punch-face/index.html