Clinton had a razor thin "win" in the recent Iowa caucus against Bernie sanders. The final voting was 497 to 501 which was the closest the Iowa caucus has ever been. In my opinion they both won and it is a tie. It is like heads or tails and in this case it is Hilary and Bernie so really the media is true in saying she won but really the numbers show it was basically a tie.
The Iowa Caucus was certainly an interesting one to watch. Especially on the democratic side. Throughout the night, it seemed like a race that would never end, with a constant tie between the two viable candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The margin between the two was extremely close, down to tenths of one percent, you cant get any closer than that when it comes right down to it.
Donald Trump thinks he is disguising himself good by seeming nice after losing the Iowa caucus but really he is just a sore loser. Trump is a ranter and has a lot of passion in what he says but when he doesn't win as usual he gets very cynical. Trump came in second in the recent Iowa caucus to Ted Cruz which is a very promising contender in the race making a recent surge. The hype around Trump is seemingly wearing off but he will probably stick around until he realizes he has no chance of winning.
I completely agree with your opinion on Trump! I definitely agree with the fact that he will stay around until he realizes that he has no chance of winning. I think that even then, Trump will stick around because he is too prideful and stubborn to do otherwise.
I disagree with Trump not winning. While he may seem like an idiot, because he is, everyone knows his name. This was only one the showing of Iowa, not the whole country. I think Trump will win the popular vote of the primary season, but he will be up a creek without a paddle once the real election picks up.
I agree with Ethan. NPR has pointed out that Iowa was tailor made for a candidate like Ted Cruz. Evangelical Christians are largely over represented in Iowa. Surprisingly, Kasich has been holding up really well in New Hampshire so the first primary will be interesting. However, it is just a matter of whether or not Trump's supporters will actually go out to vote for him. I don't think he could win a general election because he has angered Latinos, a huge coalition, and women. He is very polarizing. I imagine independents are turned off by him so he would lose them to the democrats.
This article is pretty much summing up what we discussed later on in class today about the Iowa Caucus. The article is saying that just because you lost in Iowa does not mean that you don't have a chance. But it also states that just because you win doesn't mean that you will become the next President. The article brought up many examples such as Bill Clinton losing by less than 3% to Tom Harkin, who obviously did not become the next president.
Reply to Brittney: I agree with you that the Iowa Caucus doesn't fairly show how the actual election will go. For Example, Bernie Sanders brought up the point last night that only 60% of the nation vote in the presidential elections. Which is leaving out 40% of the nation that may have voted for the other runner. Also the Caucus doesn't show how the entire nation will play out. The Caucus only shows the views of political elites who are very knowledgeable in the world of politics. While some people stroll into the election booth only voting for the person they are in partisan alignment with, or they recognize their name more.
This article is explaining how politicians and pro athletes are very similar. Both of these people have seasons and highly expensive ads or commercials. They even get updated rankings on who is the top person. I feel that the politics form their process like the NFL or NBA because more people are able to read and understand what the information is saying. This is a way for them to get more people in the know about politics and have more voter turn out in believe.
Politicians and athletes are very similar. The public always wants to be in their business and people’s opinions of them can greatly influence their careers. The information about them on social media is also often inaccurate because people are always interested in the drama, so things can be exaggerated or even made up.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html Hillary Clinton barely won Iowa, it is crazy how close her and Bernie Sanders were. I am hoping Bernie wins but I am surprised that he is head to head with Hillary. Clinton has very fickle political ideas. She seems to be just agreeing with Bernie on many subjects and tries to seem more liberal than she really is. Sanders has been way more politically active than Clinton and I feel he is more qualified. He should had won the coin flip or whatever decided Clinton was the winner.
I agree with you Lexie. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were neck and neck at the caucus and it really shows how strong Bernie's following is even though he doesn't get nearly as much publicity as Hillary. I trust Bernie Sanders because of how active he's been in politics and how consistent his beliefs have been.
Reply to Brittney: I agree this does not mean Bernie is far from over with the race. It is interesting to see a race so close and both Clinton and Sanders should not be confident at this point. Because the election can go either way.
This article is about a woman who received a phone call from a private number who knew all about her recent trips from various places around the world to promote her book. She knew that it was the National Security Agency. The NSA somehow knew about places she had not announced she was going, which led her to believe that the NSA goes through private personal messaging systems such as WhatsApp and Facetime. Personally, I don't think that the government has the right to do this because it goes against our freedoms as American citizens. Even if the NSA could potentially find terrorists and other unsafe situations, they aren't going to catch them through popular communication apps like those.
That story is crazy and really creepy. NSA becoming a type of overseer on stuff that we didn't even know was public is frightening. This, like every other controversial topic, is complicated. I definitely think it's wrong to spy on people and gather information. However, could such an atrocity prevent future tragedy? The question is really up in the air, because how are we to know how many threats have been stopped due to this? Is it worth it? I think, possibly. Sacrifice only what is already gathered by the NSA. They don't need to look into anymore stuff.
I have to agree with both of you. It is a very peculiar story and one that shouldn't even exist. We shouldn't have to be afraid or even worry about the government going through our personal information at all. And to further agree with Taylor, the government has absolutely no right. That story is horrible and its a disgrace to know that not only would they spy on her but they would then further take part in calling her to let her know about her whereabouts.
Reply to Austin about Trump: I agree with Brittney that Trump will stay in the election even if he knows he has no shot of winning. Trump clearly doesn't care what the American citizens think of him, so why would he drop out just because they won't vote for him? I think that even if he doesn't get the Republican party nomination, he will return to the race as an independent party member. Trump likes the publicity that has come with his campaign and he isn't going to willingly let it stop.
I don't thing Russia should stop, I understand there are more innocent people dead then terrorist but how is that different from our innocent men, women and children that died in the 9/11 attacks or the french innocent that died when paris was attacked? Its not different still innocent people will die no matter how we look at this. I think bombing them is the lesser of two evils.
You know I think its good NSA are going though and cracking down on terrorist but breaking our rights as citizens of the US is not ok and never will be ok
This article is about how one of America oldest stock market was sold to a China group. The 134-year-old Chicago Stock Exchange reached a deal on Friday to be acquired by a Chinese-led group of investors. The purchase by Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group is the latest U.S. investment made by China and would give the country a foothold in the vast American stock market.
This article is about how Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday accused Russia of bombing women and children. John Kerry who wants ceasefire in Syria told a reporter that "this must stop". Kerry thinks that what Russia did was wrong. Russians have made some constructive ideas about how a ceasefire could in fact be implemented, but if it's just talk for the sake of talk in order to continue the bombing, nobody's going to accept that.
I feel this is very hypocritical of the United Sates. I know they have called us out when we bomb innocent civilians but it is kind of petty that we would do the same thing for payback. I do not really think the United States said this to actually raise awareness to innocents being bombed but rather to make Russia's war process more difficult.
This article is about how veterans are used for political gains especially recently with the running of Donald Trump. In the article it says that Donal Trump make promises to veterans to make himself seem patriotic but then makes fun of veterans such as McCain who was a war prisoner and the homeless veterans that he says lower the value of his property. I definitely agree with this article's argument because Trump is definitely using them as a pawn in his campaign. He can't make fun of veterans and then say he wants to help them. The subject of veterans and poverty among them isn't something to use as a political strategy.
I agree with you Raquel. Donald Trump will say anything to appeal to the people and make himself look good. You can't really count on anything he says since he contradicts himself so much. I think it's really disrespectful that he would make fun of a veteran especially if he made promises to them. I believe he is using veterans as a pawn but I don't think it will work. He should really watch what he is because all he does is make himself look bad.
This article talks about how everyone mocks Obamacare, when it actually has done a good thing. Many other candidates say that Obamacare has destroyed millions of jobs and has caused the cost for health care to rise rapidly. The thing is though, job growth has been the best and health costs have been growing at a slower rate. The only problem I have with Obamacare is that our tax dollars are being used to pay for other people's healthcare and ours at the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/when-state-control-damages-a-city.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0 The situation in Flint Michigan grows worse and worse while hundreds of its citizen suffer the consequence. I agree that someone has to pay and take blame for the problems i do think the situation needs to be fixed before we start playing the blame game. But the more I think about the more it seem it was not just a group of individual that failed the city but instead all of the government because several levels knew of the problem beforehand.
I agree with Franklyn on the fact that not one person can take the blame. However, the governor of Flint knew about the problem. When he was asked about it he said something along the lines of it won't hurt them a lot. This is unacceptable.
This article is about Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to build a streetcar line to connect 16 miles of neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. Some people argue that these streetcars would benefit tourists more than actual residents. Others question if there are other neighborhoods with more urgent needs for transportation. Blasio promised a more equitable community so he will most likely make sure that this new plan will serve many people. The cost won't be a problem with investments and higher tax revenues.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/opinions/5-lessons-from-iowa-thornell/index.html This article is about lessons we can learn from the Iowa caucus, and I agree with the points it made. One thing it said was that organization matters more than crowd size. This basically means quality over quantity, it’s nice to have a lot of people that support you, but the numbers that matter are the people willing to caucus for you, campaign for you, and go out and vote for you. Having more supporters isn’t necessarily as beneficial as committed and organized, but fewer supporters.
The future of Myanmar looks promising. However, I don't know how China would react to the US intervening so closely to China. The United States should nonetheless support what seems to be developing into a real democracy. In the past, we have held up corrupt dictatorships, favoring stability over democracy. In this instance, we do not have to choose between the two. Suu Kyi is admirable and preferable to a military-controlled government, something that is always unsettling.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/02/05/is-it-wrong-to-watch-football?ref=opinion This article is on how football or any professional sport ruins the athletes body more than gaining fame and money. America praises on football and love to see hard-hitting tackles, but what about the victim of the tackle? They're gonna suffer from things as little as a bruise to life threatening injuries. This makes me think of an essay I read for McDermott's class on football being compared to war. Both have violence and both are superior in the United States. Have we as Americans come to the point of seeing other people hurt as pleasure?
It's not an article, but a podcast from RadioLab that relates to the party nomination race and topics about media that have been touched on in class this year. You can listen to it by following this link or by searching for RadioLab on the itunes podcasts app, and it's the most recent episode. This is about the scandal involving Gary Hart that took him down from being the front runner for the democratic nomination for the 1988 Presidential Election to having to suspend his campaign a week after the story broke. Hart's scandal was the first of it's kind in the ever changing post-Watergate political journalism world. Hart was known for years to have multiple affairs and it was an open secret in Washington, but it was considered unethical at the time for journalists to dig deeper and report on it, because the personal life of politicians was considered off limits, but after it was realized that there were personal clues that should have been seen indicating Nixon's enormous paranoia, a group of journalists decided that Hart's personal matters were important to the public and should be known, and it ruined Gary Hart. It opens up a whole series of questions with today's media approaching ever more to being completely superficial and tabloid, where are the lines drawn with agenda setting for presidential candidates? Are they allowed to have private lives outside of the public? How much did President Obama's cigarette addiction early in office matter? As we live in a more public society with social media, how far are the media allowed to dig into the social media profiles of the president's of tomorrow? Almost nobody has a completely private life anymore with the internet, will that affect future politics for the better or for the worse in 30 years?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/opinion/the-things-we-love-to-loathe.html?ref=opinion&_r=0 I think this opinion article is very well written and I really enjoyed it. It has some biased moments but I feel it's fairly impartial. I laughed when it said "Jeb Bush is the worst campaigner in the history of campaigns." They are so right. He's just an overall awkward person with not many common views. The opening to the editorial was a sort of topical allusion because I had no idea who the guy was, but afterward it made sense. All people are different and unique but there are certainly things that are "human nature" to despise.
This article is about white supremacist groups all around America are supporting Trump. It seems they think he is the only man for the job, especially do to his stance on immigration. I find it not surprising that groups like these would support Trump, but it makes me mad that people could have such negative thoughts towards a group of people and their traditions. To say such vile things like they want to kill us or all Muslims should go, makes me think how can people be this hateful. Whether Trump agrees with them or not, or even wants their support, it seems clear these groups know who there man is.
This article is about the bump, or lack there of, that Ted Cruz received after winning the Iowa caucus. In my experiences of post-caucus coverage, it seemed like Cruz's win was really being downplayed. We heard about the coverage of the win, but it seemed like most press was either centered around the Democratic side, Marco Rubio's finish, or Donald Trump's loss. Ted Cruz won the thing and seemed like the after thought for most of the week. I don't think he will fair nearly as well in New Hampshire because of the lack of evangelical vote, but it still seems so odd that the biggest winner of the night didn't have anyone come to his party after, everyone went to see what Trump would do or was already focused on what was going to happen in New Hampshire. There is almost no bandwagon for Cruz after this. It seems like the only positive affect for him after winning Iowa is that his polling won't decrease, but will likely stay about where it was before.
This article brings up an issue that regards veterans, and politicians. Their predicament is a sad one indeed. These people give their lives to their country to ensure its safety, and pay the ultimate price for their sacrifice. Yet we as a nation never seem to want to repay them for all that they have done after they return from war. Not giving them the proper healthcare that they need in order to deal with their physical, and mental trauma. To make matters worse, some politicians seem to like to put on a show to seem as if they care about the troops and their struggles. But in reality, they just use the troops in order to advance themselves in their race, nothing more. leaving hollow, unfulfilled promises to many veterans throughout the nation.
This article is about a gunman attack that occurred in Ireland on the 5th of February. It was such a nasty attack. Three people, one disguised as a woman and the other two disguised as police, opened gunfire in a hotel in Dublin and ended up killing a citizen in the process. The reason I believe they chose this hotel is because of the huge mass of people that were going to be there because of the boxers that were being housed there. Its sad to hear about events like this, but its also weird to know this this is happening in such a peaceful country. We almost never hear about events like this happening in these places at all. My heart goes out to the victims' families.
America stand for freedom. And in Saudi Arabia there is barely any freedom when it comes to the expression of poetry bad art. A man by the name of Ashraf Fayadh was convicted of apostasy and instead of getting beheaded his sentence was reduced “ to eight years in prison, 800 lashes and a public declaration of repentance”. Personally I think that it's unfair that there is no freedom of expression of art and poetry. It kind of goes along with certain books that have been banned and be whole dilemma with Darwin and the church. I believe everyone should be entitled to express their emotion and feeling through their Choice but I can also understand why they are very strict since their religion strives to solely teach one idea .
The mess in Flint is absurd and disgusting. Flint residents trusted the water yet it tuned out to be a horrible disaster. And to makes things worse not much help if being provided to them. I think that his should be an emergency because water is an essential resource in our lives. However the government isn't taking a lot of action , yes it has been arrested yet not much is happening. There are test being done but it points out what people already know. And like the article says the house oversight committee failed to negotiate a financial aid packet or plan .
It's crazy to think that even after this story has blown up not only nationally, but world wide, that there hasn't been much government action taken. But it begs the question of who is responsible for taking care of this problem. Federal, state, or local? It's sad to think that all the people of Flint are still suffering as this crisis has been ongoing for weeks. The governments priorities should be making sure its citizens are safe.
This article kind of intrigued me, and is one of the only articles on CNN not talking about primaries it seems like. This article talks about the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and what they are hiding. But what they are hiding is artwork. It just kinds of seems strange that they're being so protective over a couple pieces of abstract art, and it makes me wonder what in the world they are using the pieces for. The very beginning of the article mentions that they are used for training, but I have no idea what they would do with the paintings to train agents. This kinds of rides on the back of what we've been learning about in the past with government secrecy and media meddling. Is it constitutional for the CIA to keep the paintings confidential when they don't really provide any national security information?
In this article, women are talking about the use of the word fat towards other women and themselves. The author of this article wrote that she uses the word fat to describe the main character of her book and herself. Most women are uncomfortable with loosely using this word but I don't feel like that it should be that way. There are some limits to the use of the word "fat". If a person is using it to negatively put someone else down then it should not be used at all. If a female feels the need to call herself fat to describe how she feels about herself then she should be able to without being criticized or pacified.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html
ReplyDeleteClinton had a razor thin "win" in the recent Iowa caucus against Bernie sanders. The final voting was 497 to 501 which was the closest the Iowa caucus has ever been. In my opinion they both won and it is a tie. It is like heads or tails and in this case it is Hilary and Bernie so really the media is true in saying she won but really the numbers show it was basically a tie.
The Iowa Caucus was certainly an interesting one to watch. Especially on the democratic side. Throughout the night, it seemed like a race that would never end, with a constant tie between the two viable candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The margin between the two was extremely close, down to tenths of one percent, you cant get any closer than that when it comes right down to it.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/opinions/trump-is-a-loser-dantonio/index.html
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump thinks he is disguising himself good by seeming nice after losing the Iowa caucus but really he is just a sore loser. Trump is a ranter and has a lot of passion in what he says but when he doesn't win as usual he gets very cynical. Trump came in second in the recent Iowa caucus to Ted Cruz which is a very promising contender in the race making a recent surge. The hype around Trump is seemingly wearing off but he will probably stick around until he realizes he has no chance of winning.
I completely agree with your opinion on Trump! I definitely agree with the fact that he will stay around until he realizes that he has no chance of winning. I think that even then, Trump will stick around because he is too prideful and stubborn to do otherwise.
DeleteI disagree with Trump not winning. While he may seem like an idiot, because he is, everyone knows his name. This was only one the showing of Iowa, not the whole country. I think Trump will win the popular vote of the primary season, but he will be up a creek without a paddle once the real election picks up.
DeleteI agree with Ethan. NPR has pointed out that Iowa was tailor made for a candidate like Ted Cruz. Evangelical Christians are largely over represented in Iowa. Surprisingly, Kasich has been holding up really well in New Hampshire so the first primary will be interesting. However, it is just a matter of whether or not Trump's supporters will actually go out to vote for him. I don't think he could win a general election because he has angered Latinos, a huge coalition, and women. He is very polarizing. I imagine independents are turned off by him so he would lose them to the democrats.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/opinion/campaign-stops/you-didnt-win-iowa-now-what.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
ReplyDeleteThis article is pretty much summing up what we discussed later on in class today about the Iowa Caucus. The article is saying that just because you lost in Iowa does not mean that you don't have a chance. But it also states that just because you win doesn't mean that you will become the next President. The article brought up many examples such as Bill Clinton losing by less than 3% to Tom Harkin, who obviously did not become the next president.
Reply to Brittney:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the Iowa Caucus doesn't fairly show how the actual election will go. For Example, Bernie Sanders brought up the point last night that only 60% of the nation vote in the presidential elections. Which is leaving out 40% of the nation that may have voted for the other runner. Also the Caucus doesn't show how the entire nation will play out. The Caucus only shows the views of political elites who are very knowledgeable in the world of politics. While some people stroll into the election booth only voting for the person they are in partisan alignment with, or they recognize their name more.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/politicians-answer-questions-like-athletes/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is explaining how politicians and pro athletes are very similar. Both of these people have seasons and highly expensive ads or commercials. They even get updated rankings on who is the top person. I feel that the politics form their process like the NFL or NBA because more people are able to read and understand what the information is saying. This is a way for them to get more people in the know about politics and have more voter turn out in believe.
Politicians and athletes are very similar. The public always wants to be in their business and people’s opinions of them can greatly influence their careers. The information about them on social media is also often inaccurate because people are always interested in the drama, so things can be exaggerated or even made up.
Deletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/politics/new-hampshire-primary-2016/index.html
ReplyDeleteHillary Clinton barely won Iowa, it is crazy how close her and Bernie Sanders were. I am hoping Bernie wins but I am surprised that he is head to head with Hillary. Clinton has very fickle political ideas. She seems to be just agreeing with Bernie on many subjects and tries to seem more liberal than she really is. Sanders has been way more politically active than Clinton and I feel he is more qualified. He should had won the coin flip or whatever decided Clinton was the winner.
I agree with you Lexie. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were neck and neck at the caucus and it really shows how strong Bernie's following is even though he doesn't get nearly as much publicity as Hillary. I trust Bernie Sanders because of how active he's been in politics and how consistent his beliefs have been.
DeleteReply to Brittney:
ReplyDeleteI agree this does not mean Bernie is far from over with the race. It is interesting to see a race so close and both Clinton and Sanders should not be confident at this point. Because the election can go either way.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/opinion/my-secret-policeman.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a woman who received a phone call from a private number who knew all about her recent trips from various places around the world to promote her book. She knew that it was the National Security Agency. The NSA somehow knew about places she had not announced she was going, which led her to believe that the NSA goes through private personal messaging systems such as WhatsApp and Facetime. Personally, I don't think that the government has the right to do this because it goes against our freedoms as American citizens. Even if the NSA could potentially find terrorists and other unsafe situations, they aren't going to catch them through popular communication apps like those.
That story is crazy and really creepy. NSA becoming a type of overseer on stuff that we didn't even know was public is frightening. This, like every other controversial topic, is complicated. I definitely think it's wrong to spy on people and gather information. However, could such an atrocity prevent future tragedy? The question is really up in the air, because how are we to know how many threats have been stopped due to this? Is it worth it? I think, possibly. Sacrifice only what is already gathered by the NSA. They don't need to look into anymore stuff.
DeleteI have to agree with both of you. It is a very peculiar story and one that shouldn't even exist. We shouldn't have to be afraid or even worry about the government going through our personal information at all. And to further agree with Taylor, the government has absolutely no right. That story is horrible and its a disgrace to know that not only would they spy on her but they would then further take part in calling her to let her know about her whereabouts.
DeleteReply to Austin about Trump:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brittney that Trump will stay in the election even if he knows he has no shot of winning. Trump clearly doesn't care what the American citizens think of him, so why would he drop out just because they won't vote for him? I think that even if he doesn't get the Republican party nomination, he will return to the race as an independent party member. Trump likes the publicity that has come with his campaign and he isn't going to willingly let it stop.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/04/putin-ignores-kerry-plea-instead-deploys-top-gun-fighter-jet-to-join-syria-battle.html
ReplyDeleteI don't thing Russia should stop, I understand there are more innocent people dead then terrorist but how is that different from our innocent men, women and children that died in the 9/11 attacks or the french innocent that died when paris was attacked? Its not different still innocent people will die no matter how we look at this. I think bombing them is the lesser of two evils.
Reply to Taylor abut NSA
ReplyDeleteYou know I think its good NSA are going though and cracking down on terrorist but breaking our rights as citizens of the US is not ok and never will be ok
http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/05/investing/china-buys-chicago-stock-exchange/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how one of America oldest stock market was sold to a China group. The 134-year-old Chicago Stock Exchange reached a deal on Friday to be acquired by a Chinese-led group of investors. The purchase by Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group is the latest U.S. investment made by China and would give the country a foothold in the vast American stock market.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/kerry-russian-bombs-killing-women-and-children-in-large-numbers/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how Secretary of State John Kerry on Friday accused Russia of bombing women and children. John Kerry who wants ceasefire in Syria told a reporter that "this must stop". Kerry thinks that what Russia did was wrong. Russians have made some constructive ideas about how a ceasefire could in fact be implemented, but if it's just talk for the sake of talk in order to continue the bombing, nobody's going to accept that.
I feel this is very hypocritical of the United Sates. I know they have called us out when we bomb innocent civilians but it is kind of petty that we would do the same thing for payback. I do not really think the United States said this to actually raise awareness to innocents being bombed but rather to make Russia's war process more difficult.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/opinion/veterans-patriots-and-pawns.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about how veterans are used for political gains especially recently with the running of Donald Trump. In the article it says that Donal Trump make promises to veterans to make himself seem patriotic but then makes fun of veterans such as McCain who was a war prisoner and the homeless veterans that he says lower the value of his property. I definitely agree with this article's argument because Trump is definitely using them as a pawn in his campaign. He can't make fun of veterans and then say he wants to help them. The subject of veterans and poverty among them isn't something to use as a political strategy.
I agree with you Raquel. Donald Trump will say anything to appeal to the people and make himself look good. You can't really count on anything he says since he contradicts himself so much. I think it's really disrespectful that he would make fun of a veteran especially if he made promises to them. I believe he is using veterans as a pawn but I don't think it will work. He should really watch what he is because all he does is make himself look bad.
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/opinion/who-hates-obamacare.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about how everyone mocks Obamacare, when it actually has done a good thing. Many other candidates say that Obamacare has destroyed millions of jobs and has caused the cost for health care to rise rapidly. The thing is though, job growth has been the best and health costs have been growing at a slower rate. The only problem I have with Obamacare is that our tax dollars are being used to pay for other people's healthcare and ours at the same time.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/when-state-control-damages-a-city.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0
ReplyDeleteThe situation in Flint Michigan grows worse and worse while hundreds of its citizen suffer the consequence. I agree that someone has to pay and take blame for the problems i do think the situation needs to be fixed before we start playing the blame game. But the more I think about the more it seem it was not just a group of individual that failed the city but instead all of the government because several levels knew of the problem beforehand.
I agree with Franklyn on the fact that not one person can take the blame. However, the governor of Flint knew about the problem. When he was asked about it he said something along the lines of it won't hurt them a lot. This is unacceptable.
Deletehttp://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/opinion/a-streetcar-ride-to-new-yorks-future.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about Mayor Bill de Blasio’s plan to build a streetcar line to connect 16 miles of neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. Some people argue that these streetcars would benefit tourists more than actual residents. Others question if there are other neighborhoods with more urgent needs for transportation. Blasio promised a more equitable community so he will most likely make sure that this new plan will serve many people. The cost won't be a problem with investments and higher tax revenues.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/03/opinions/5-lessons-from-iowa-thornell/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about lessons we can learn from the Iowa caucus, and I agree with the points it made. One thing it said was that organization matters more than crowd size. This basically means quality over quantity, it’s nice to have a lot of people that support you, but the numbers that matter are the people willing to caucus for you, campaign for you, and go out and vote for you. Having more supporters isn’t necessarily as beneficial as committed and organized, but fewer supporters.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/opinions/myanmar-policy-cotton/index.html
ReplyDeleteThe future of Myanmar looks promising. However, I don't know how China would react to the US intervening so closely to China. The United States should nonetheless support what seems to be developing into a real democracy. In the past, we have held up corrupt dictatorships, favoring stability over democracy. In this instance, we do not have to choose between the two. Suu Kyi is admirable and preferable to a military-controlled government, something that is always unsettling.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/02/05/is-it-wrong-to-watch-football?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article is on how football or any professional sport ruins the athletes body more than gaining fame and money. America praises on football and love to see hard-hitting tackles, but what about the victim of the tackle? They're gonna suffer from things as little as a bruise to life threatening injuries. This makes me think of an essay I read for McDermott's class on football being compared to war. Both have violence and both are superior in the United States. Have we as Americans come to the point of seeing other people hurt as pleasure?
http://www.radiolab.org/story/i-dont-have-answer/
ReplyDeleteIt's not an article, but a podcast from RadioLab that relates to the party nomination race and topics about media that have been touched on in class this year. You can listen to it by following this link or by searching for RadioLab on the itunes podcasts app, and it's the most recent episode. This is about the scandal involving Gary Hart that took him down from being the front runner for the democratic nomination for the 1988 Presidential Election to having to suspend his campaign a week after the story broke. Hart's scandal was the first of it's kind in the ever changing post-Watergate political journalism world. Hart was known for years to have multiple affairs and it was an open secret in Washington, but it was considered unethical at the time for journalists to dig deeper and report on it, because the personal life of politicians was considered off limits, but after it was realized that there were personal clues that should have been seen indicating Nixon's enormous paranoia, a group of journalists decided that Hart's personal matters were important to the public and should be known, and it ruined Gary Hart. It opens up a whole series of questions with today's media approaching ever more to being completely superficial and tabloid, where are the lines drawn with agenda setting for presidential candidates? Are they allowed to have private lives outside of the public? How much did President Obama's cigarette addiction early in office matter? As we live in a more public society with social media, how far are the media allowed to dig into the social media profiles of the president's of tomorrow? Almost nobody has a completely private life anymore with the internet, will that affect future politics for the better or for the worse in 30 years?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/06/opinion/the-things-we-love-to-loathe.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
ReplyDeleteI think this opinion article is very well written and I really enjoyed it. It has some biased moments but I feel it's fairly impartial. I laughed when it said "Jeb Bush is the worst campaigner in the history of campaigns." They are so right. He's just an overall awkward person with not many common views. The opening to the editorial was a sort of topical allusion because I had no idea who the guy was, but afterward it made sense. All people are different and unique but there are certainly things that are "human nature" to despise.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/donald-trump-white-supremacists-new-hampshire/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about white supremacist groups all around America are supporting Trump. It seems they think he is the only man for the job, especially do to his stance on immigration. I find it not surprising that groups like these would support Trump, but it makes me mad that people could have such negative thoughts towards a group of people and their traditions. To say such vile things like they want to kill us or all Muslims should go, makes me think how can people be this hateful. Whether Trump agrees with them or not, or even wants their support, it seems clear these groups know who there man is.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/marco-rubio-stole-ted-cruzs-iowa-bounce/
ReplyDeleteThis article is about the bump, or lack there of, that Ted Cruz received after winning the Iowa caucus. In my experiences of post-caucus coverage, it seemed like Cruz's win was really being downplayed. We heard about the coverage of the win, but it seemed like most press was either centered around the Democratic side, Marco Rubio's finish, or Donald Trump's loss. Ted Cruz won the thing and seemed like the after thought for most of the week. I don't think he will fair nearly as well in New Hampshire because of the lack of evangelical vote, but it still seems so odd that the biggest winner of the night didn't have anyone come to his party after, everyone went to see what Trump would do or was already focused on what was going to happen in New Hampshire. There is almost no bandwagon for Cruz after this. It seems like the only positive affect for him after winning Iowa is that his polling won't decrease, but will likely stay about where it was before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/opinion/veterans-patriots-and-pawns.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteThis article brings up an issue that regards veterans, and politicians. Their predicament is a sad one indeed. These people give their lives to their country to ensure its safety, and pay the ultimate price for their sacrifice. Yet we as a nation never seem to want to repay them for all that they have done after they return from war. Not giving them the proper healthcare that they need in order to deal with their physical, and mental trauma. To make matters worse, some politicians seem to like to put on a show to seem as if they care about the troops and their struggles. But in reality, they just use the troops in order to advance themselves in their race, nothing more. leaving hollow, unfulfilled promises to many veterans throughout the nation.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/world/ireland-dublin-hotel-incident/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article is about a gunman attack that occurred in Ireland on the 5th of February. It was such a nasty attack. Three people, one disguised as a woman and the other two disguised as police, opened gunfire in a hotel in Dublin and ended up killing a citizen in the process. The reason I believe they chose this hotel is because of the huge mass of people that were going to be there because of the boxers that were being housed there. Its sad to hear about events like this, but its also weird to know this this is happening in such a peaceful country. We almost never hear about events like this happening in these places at all. My heart goes out to the victims' families.
http://nyti.ms/1Kumwvh
ReplyDeleteAmerica stand for freedom. And in Saudi Arabia there is barely any freedom when it comes to the expression of poetry bad art. A man by the name of Ashraf Fayadh was convicted of apostasy and instead of getting beheaded his sentence was reduced “ to eight years in prison, 800 lashes and a public declaration of repentance”. Personally I think that it's unfair that there is no freedom of expression of art and poetry. It kind of goes along with certain books that have been banned and be whole dilemma with Darwin and the church. I believe everyone should be entitled to express their emotion and feeling through their Choice but I can also understand why they are very strict since their religion strives to solely teach one idea .
http://nyti.ms/23OPCfu
ReplyDeleteThe mess in Flint is absurd and disgusting. Flint residents trusted the water yet it tuned out to be a horrible disaster. And to makes things worse not much help if being provided to them. I think that his should be an emergency because water is an essential resource in our lives. However the government isn't taking a lot of action , yes it has been arrested yet not much is happening. There are test being done but it points out what people already know. And like the article says the house oversight committee failed to negotiate a financial aid packet or plan .
It's crazy to think that even after this story has blown up not only nationally, but world wide, that there hasn't been much government action taken. But it begs the question of who is responsible for taking care of this problem. Federal, state, or local? It's sad to think that all the people of Flint are still suffering as this crisis has been ongoing for weeks. The governments priorities should be making sure its citizens are safe.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/arts/cia-secret-art-collection/index.html
ReplyDeleteThis article kind of intrigued me, and is one of the only articles on CNN not talking about primaries it seems like. This article talks about the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, and what they are hiding. But what they are hiding is artwork. It just kinds of seems strange that they're being so protective over a couple pieces of abstract art, and it makes me wonder what in the world they are using the pieces for. The very beginning of the article mentions that they are used for training, but I have no idea what they would do with the paintings to train agents. This kinds of rides on the back of what we've been learning about in the past with government secrecy and media meddling. Is it constitutional for the CIA to keep the paintings confidential when they don't really provide any national security information?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/opinion/sunday/yes-im-fat-its-ok-i-said-it.html?ref=opinion
ReplyDeleteIn this article, women are talking about the use of the word fat towards other women and themselves. The author of this article wrote that she uses the word fat to describe the main character of her book and herself. Most women are uncomfortable with loosely using this word but I don't feel like that it should be that way. There are some limits to the use of the word "fat". If a person is using it to negatively put someone else down then it should not be used at all. If a female feels the need to call herself fat to describe how she feels about herself then she should be able to without being criticized or pacified.