The Ongoing Issue With The Confederate Flag

A few months ago, 15 men in pickup trucks drove by a birthday party for a young child in the suburbs of Atlanta with the Confederate Flag attached to their trucks. This past week, those same men were indicted by a grand jury on terror-related charges. All 15 members are also a part of an organization known as Respect the Flag with violating Georgia's Street Gang Terrorism and Prevention Act and making terroristic threats. If convicted, they could face up to 20 years in prison. Melissa Alford, the women who hosted the birthday party recounts the incident saying that the people holding the flags were also brandishing weapons. She also told a CNN affiliate WSB that "They used the N-word and said they were going to kill people on my property". Aside from the issue of the Confederate flag, it seems that these 15 people are just racist and the fact they consider the Confederate flag acceptable in the year 2015 is just absurd. 

There are always two sides to a story, and some of the members told the Atlanta Constitution that someone at the party threw rocks at them, triggering the altercation. The group's leader, Levi Bush, who has been indicted, declined CNN's request for an interview. Other members of the group could not be reached for comment, and it was not clear whether they had legal representation. It is evident that these 15 men are too ignorant to actually acknowledge that they are in the wrong in this situation, and what person would drive by a birthday party trying to provoke hate and remind people of our countries unfortunate past. 

The indictment alleges that the Respect the Flag organization is a criminal street gang, and that members of the group threatened to commit a crime of violence against people at the party, with the purpose of terrorizing those individuals and in reckless disregard for the risks of causing such terror. Although what occurred at the birthday party was extremely uncalled for, it is great to see that justice is being served, and hopefully these men do have to spend up to 10 years in prison. 

Furthermore, yes South Carolina agreed not to raise the flag in their State Capital building and Congress in July even voted to ban the Confederate Flag from all cemeteries in the South, but there has not been an official ban on the Confederate flag yet. 

Some questions after reading this article are: 

Obviously this flag needs to be banned altogether, but with Republicans being so opposed and with no sign of them easing up, what is the best possible solution to ban the flag?

Does Congress have the right to ban the flag altogether? Is it constitutional to ban a flag?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/14/us/douglasville-confederate-flag-terror-charges/index.html

The Problem With Voter Turnout

In 2011, the Canadian election for prime minister occurred with the second lowest voter turnout in Canadian history, a low of 53.8 percent of eligible adults. This is the second lowest turnout ever in a prime minister election. This relatively low number is around the average for the United States. This low average for the US has been a huge problem, as more and more people have felt underrepresented. For Canada, the voter rates for the advanced polls is up over 26 percent from 2011 and 90 percent from 2008 for the upcoming election this weekend. This is due to the unsatisfactory reign of the conservative Stephen Harper. The question of how to get citizens to vote has long been an issue for the United States. In specific, the turnout of young voters is drastically lower than the other demographics. One reason that Canada's voter turnout is marginally higher is that it is not simply a two party election. Because their system has equal representation for the conservative and liberal parties, the New Democratic Party, and the Green party, more people feel like they are accomplishing something by voting for a party that is specified to their ideals. But this doesn't seem plausible for the very dominant forces of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Voter turnout is an omnipresent issue with American politics, and not many solutions have come up to fix it. And because of this, politicians have been playing into the ideals of the demographics that vote the most. This is one of the reasons that very little legislation is passed with the youth in mind. Some solutions that have been voiced include streamlining voting to make it easier, such as voting online and shorter voting lines, and getting people excited for elections in between elections. Some have even advocated for mandatory voting in presidential elections. While these solutions have been voiced, almost no action has been taken to fix this problem.

Are the solutions provided enough to get the greater public to vote?
What other solutions are possible to implement in to the rigid US dynamic?
Why does the US have some of the lowest voting numbers compared to other countries?

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/turnout.php

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/society/voter-turnout.aspx

http://globalnews.ca/news/2270738/elections-canada-reports-higher-voter-turnout-for-advance-polls-this-weekend/

The Battle for Planned Parenthood

The constant fight over Planned Parenthood is becoming more than just another issue in the war over Abortion. The question for many Republicans is should the government pour millions of dollars into this organization? Either way, a decision in December will have to be made, and the outcome of the decision will affect voters, people, and the government's budget. Recently, the issue has been brought up in many of the GOP debates,  and presidential candidates Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Carly Fiorina have found videos released this summer which purportedly show Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue, seeking to seize on grassroots conservative revulsion and to put potential Democratic rivals on the defensive. This issue is one that has multiple aspects to it, mainly because Planned Parenthood is a positive and beneficial organization, however there have been negative reports of some of the officials that work at the organization. Furthermore, Republicans have repeatedly attempted to wound the organization, partly because Planned Parenthood and its
 supporters lie at the center of the extended Democratic Party political machine.

The core of the Democratic party isn't overly interested in the Planned Parenthood organization. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, which supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood and supports Democrats who also oppose abortion. It interesting to see a rift in the Democratic party because usually most Democrats agree with each other’s views on political issues and in the past they have supported the funding of Planned Parenthood. Day also goes on to talk about the Democratic party saying "if you separate the women's health issue from elections, Democrats would make very different decisions." The fact that these accusations are from a Democrat is quite interesting. However, Day backs the entirety of the party by saying "Instead of protecting one corporation that heavily finances Democratic candidates, Democrats would rather focus on how to increase funding for healthcare for women.” A cut in funds to Planned Parenthood would be a huge loss for the organization, but as for the Democrats themselves, they wouldn’t be taking a suffering loss mainly because Planned Parenthood does not generate that much money for either political party. For example, in the 2014 electoral cycle, Planned Parenthood spent just under $1.6 million in contributions to political candidates, party committees and PACS and a little more in lobbying, according to OpenSecrets.org, which charts the role of money in politics. 1.6 million is really not much in the grand scheme of things, which is why funding for Planed Parenthood might not be as significant as the organization hopes it will be this coming December.

Some questions that should be answered before December are:

Is Planned Parenthood considered a notable and trustworthy organization for females?
Should our government fund the organization with millions of dollars? Why or why not?
If some Democrats support the defunding of Planned Parenthood, would it make more sense to try and create a beneficial healthcare system for women? Why or why not? 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/30/politics/planned-parenthood-congress-2016/index.html
 

Obama states Clinton email server is a 'mistake'

On Sunday, October 11th President Obama called Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server a "mistake." He denied that the United States national security had been jeopardized as a result.  

Obama made these comments during an interview on CBS's "60 Minutes" program where he also defended his policy in Syria. "She made a mistake. She acknowledged it. I do not think that the way it's been ginned up is in part because of politics," Obama said in the interview. The email scandal has been "ginned up" into a political attack by Republicans eager to keep her from being President. 

Clinton's use of the email server has played a large role in this presidential political season. She will definitely face questions about the emails during Tuesday's Democratic presidential debate and later this month when she will appear before the House committee. 

Obama stated he did not initially know that Clinton was using a private email server. The server was kept at her home in Chappaqua, New York instead of a professional data center. The 60 Minutes interviewer, Steve Kroft pointed out that the Obama administration has prosecuted people for having classified material on their private computers. He responded by stating he did not get the impression that there was a need to "hide something." 

Currently, Clinton's server is being investigated by the FBI to determine if the information that was passed through her sever was mishandled. In addition, the State Department is releasing 30,000 emails that Clinton declared "work related." Clinton deemed another 30,000 emails to be "personal" and therefore deleted them. Republicans are eager to know if any of those emails were work related emails that should have been handed over to the State Department. 

In addition, Senate investigators discovered that China, South Korea and Germany attempted to hack her server in 2013. 

President Obama exclaimed that the email scandal is not a situation where the United States national security was endangered. Do you agree with this statement? Why or why not? 

If you were in Clinton's position as a presidential candidate, how would you address the email server? 

Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/politics/obama-tells-60-minutes-hillary-clinton-made-email-mistake.html?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/12/obama-says-clinton-email-server-mistake-but-denies-national-security/

Paul Ryan Pegged as Favorite for Speaker, But Should He Take the Job?

Following former Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner's resignation, a massive power vacuum has been left in the GOP-controlled House. Following the catastrophic failure of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's bid for the position, the Republican establishment is desperate for a difference maker to step up. The great consensus is that Paul Ryan, Representative from Wisconsin and 2012 Vice President nominee, is the party's best and only hope for the position. The party itself is also unanimous in its opinion that Paul Ryan is the obvious choice for the job. Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma called Ryan "the complete package," and "a natural consensus player," and then added that Ryan was "a thought leader in the Republican Party." Representative Fred Upton of Michigan said that Ryan was "the only choice," and "the main to bring us all together. Mitt Romney; John Boehner; everyone is in agreement that Ryan is the man for the job.

So what's the problem? Well, the only person that doesn't think Paul Ryan should be speaker is Paul Ryan. He made it clear in another statement following McCarthy's failure on Thursday, the first coming after Boehner's announcement two weeks ago, that he had no interest in being speaker. The establishment, despite its infatuation with the idea of Ryan at the helm, is not ignorant of his stance on taking the position. Representative Rick Mulvaney of South Carolina is only one of the countless party members urging Ryan to assume the position, saying "Sometimes you just need to do it, right?" he said "The country needs you. The party needs you." Representative Upton said of Ryan that "He needs to do this for the team, that's what we are all telling him." Essentially the only thing the quarreling Republican party can agree on at the moment is that Ryan is the man to unite them.

However, some believe that forcing Ryan into a position he is actively avoiding would be detrimental for everyone. Some are saying that a reluctant speaker could be the last thing a party experiencing such inner conflict would need. He would be taking one of the most difficult positions in government, possibly unwillingly, and could be taking a position that would be hurting his future political aspirations. The last speaker elected as president was James Polk in 1844, and many believe that Ryan actually has aspirations for that job.

What could Ryan do for the good of the party or nation as speaker?
Should he step up to the role despite his unwillingness?
Is he more willing to take the role of speaker than he has let on?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/us/politics/desperate-gop-appeals-to-ryan-on-speakers-job.html?_r=0
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/10/11/freedom-caucus-leaders-back-paul-ryan-for-speaker/73775258/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/09/paul-ryan-is-getting-a-raw-deal/

Marco Rubio's Fundraising Weakens

Florida Senator Marco Rubio raised only $6 million in August, down from $12 million during the previous three months. Although he survived the brutal summer during which two candidates dropped out from lack of funding, his financial base is still weakening. Rubio's steadily decreasing poll numbers certainly do not contradict this.

Rubio shared the figure at a gathering of supporters in Las Vegas. Many analysts believe that Republican donors are hesitating to support Rubio, who has enjoyed much popularity over the past few years as the fresh modern face of the GOP. Now, however, outsider candidates with no political experience, like Ben Carson and Donald Trump, still dominate the polls in a way that drastically changes the historical precedent. Mr. Carson has raised $20 million in the past month, through largely small donors.

On the flip side, August is traditionally a slow period for campaign financing because many donors are on vacation. Not to mention, Rubio still retains $11 million, $3 million of which are contributions he transferred from his senate campaign at the start of the race.

What do you guys think about this? Why has Rubio seen a lack of financing recently? Is it his fault? Has campaign funding become more important than popular opinion in determining a candidate's success?

Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/08/marco-rubios-fund-raising-pace-slows/?ref=politics&_r=0

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/rubio-fundraisingfalls/2015/10/08/id/695376/

http://www.msnbc.com/sites/msnbc/files/2013/02/rubio.jpg

U.S. Avoids Confronting Putin, Hoping to Keep Tensions Low

Even after Russia has sent their missiles and jets flying over Syria, President Obama continues to support a patient response to avoid conflict with Russia. Although he calls it patience, many critics think that he is scared to make a bold move against Russia. If this is true, it comes with good reason since he is dealing with a leader like Putin.

At this point, there is very little that the U.S. could do without sparking Russia to escalate tensions. Although Obama is preparing for meetings in coming days, he does not have a new plan to deal with Russia, Putin, or the Islamic State. Although the U.S. wants to help the Syrian opposition allies, it will not provide them with arms. This leads Obama to believe that not much can be done about the issue right now, and that most of the help that the U.S. can provide will be given after the fact. This is especially true because of where this is taking place; the Middle East, where one political or military move could erupt a whole new issue. As a result, the U.S. government believes that all it can do right now is sit back and wait out Russia's intervention, while still keeping a close eye on the issue.

Although it is unsure what can be done in our relations with Russia without angering them, we know that it might not take much to make Putin do something rash. Many think that the Obama administration is being too reserved, and that if we want to come to an agreement with Russia, we must take action. They say it is wishful thinking to believe that Russia will be reasonable if we just sit back and do nothing. However, if we do do something, we have no idea what Russia will do,

What do you think the Obama administration should do? Is the U.S. being too conservative or is it being smart? Does the U.S. even have a responsibility in this issue?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/09/world/wary-of-escalation-the-us-is-waiting-out-putins-moves.html