Blog 6
In the first democratic debate of the 2016 elections, Bernie Sanders brought up the point that our economy today is incredibly unequal. As Bernie said, “It is wrong today in a rigged economy the fifty-seven percent of all new income is going to the top one percent.” This is a ridiculous statist not to mention that fact-check found that the actual number is fifty-eight percent of all new income. Personally I think that Hilary won the debate. Although I have a bias for Bernie, Clinton held her ground on issues and demonstrated her political knowledge and experience. The crowd agreed with a lot of her stances and she was overall very composed.
Compared to the GOP debate the democratic debate was much more reserved. The democratic candidates did not attack each other as much as the republicans did. It almost seemed as though the people organizing the questions were trying to get a rise out of the candidates and they just weren’t having it. The GOP debate was a lot more controversial with more personal digs at the candidates than the democratic debate.
Clinton stated, “I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence.” This quote makes it sound as though ninety people die a day from crimes related to shooting, however this is a form of rhetoric. This statistic includes suicides with the use of guns and not just deaths from crimes. The actual number of deaths a day from gun violence is about 30.
Bernie is making it somewhat clear that he is a democratic socialist. With his ideas of free higher education and government-sponsored health care he leans towards socialist views, but he does not completely identify as a socialist. His ideas are very similar to views of European politics. He wants a strong welfare state but he chooses to not identify as a socialist because of its derogatory connotations in America.
One political cartoon that I found true was the one found one Hilary and Bernie. Bernie was in the first place pedestal but Hilary had made herself bigger with the help of the media and pundits. I liked this because it is in line with my political opinions. Although Bernie has good ideas, he is not getting the attention he deserves because of the lack of congressional or authoritarian support. He is also not covered enough by the media to have a strong stance in the political debate. Hillary on the other hand is in first place because of the medias constant attention on her and her sponsorships.
Compared to the GOP debate the democratic debate was much more reserved. The democratic candidates did not attack each other as much as the republicans did. It almost seemed as though the people organizing the questions were trying to get a rise out of the candidates and they just weren’t having it. The GOP debate was a lot more controversial with more personal digs at the candidates than the democratic debate.
Clinton stated, “I think that we have to look at the fact that we lose 90 people a day from gun violence.” This quote makes it sound as though ninety people die a day from crimes related to shooting, however this is a form of rhetoric. This statistic includes suicides with the use of guns and not just deaths from crimes. The actual number of deaths a day from gun violence is about 30.
Bernie is making it somewhat clear that he is a democratic socialist. With his ideas of free higher education and government-sponsored health care he leans towards socialist views, but he does not completely identify as a socialist. His ideas are very similar to views of European politics. He wants a strong welfare state but he chooses to not identify as a socialist because of its derogatory connotations in America.
One political cartoon that I found true was the one found one Hilary and Bernie. Bernie was in the first place pedestal but Hilary had made herself bigger with the help of the media and pundits. I liked this because it is in line with my political opinions. Although Bernie has good ideas, he is not getting the attention he deserves because of the lack of congressional or authoritarian support. He is also not covered enough by the media to have a strong stance in the political debate. Hillary on the other hand is in first place because of the medias constant attention on her and her sponsorships.
Blog 5
Recently we had to read about the “Big Sort” which is pretty much cliques for adults. It turns out that a lot of the time we tend to socialize with people who are similar to us. This may seem like old new but a recent study shows that even goes as far as creating communities and neighborhoods of people who all share the same political opinions. Before the reading I never really thought about how my community was oriented but after the reading I realize it is very prominent in my life. Durango in itself is a very liberal community. It is made up of very earthy, outdoorsy people who tend to lean left. Animas itself is a very liberal school. I would guess about ninety percent of the students here are democrats. There are not too many republicans but they usually identify with each other. For instance, last year in one of my classes, there was a specific corner that all the right oriented students sat in. Even though we were not discussing politics they literally grouped together every day. Their political opinion gave them such a sense of place that they were drawn to sit together every class even though the seating was random. The big sort is a powerful thing that we often don’t notice in our everyday lives. This explains why states are either red or blue. People who live near each other will vote similar to each other.
Blog 4
I chose to read the Three Cheers for the Nanny State Article, written by Sarah Conly. The article talks about the public reaction to the ban on large sized sodas in New York. The article is an op-ed that agrees that the ban should be incorporations. Sodas or sugary drinks that are large sized are not healthy for people. The government should not have to back off in preventing issues but be expected to help once it arises. The ban also isn’t on soda completely. People can still drink as much soda as they want, it just will not be in just one container. The only issue that I have with the ban is the governments control over small freedoms like soda size. Although it is unlikely that the government will start completely abusing their power and taking away everyone’s rights, it is still a scary idea. Overall I believe that the ban on large sodas is not bad; although I think we do need to be cautious of our governments power.
Blog 3
This article says that the common claim of why women don’t run for office more often is because of, “…that fewer women run for political office because of family concerns and responsibilities.” However, this is not why I would assume women aren’t running for office. I would think that women do not run because they are not as supported as men are when running and people do not suspect that they are as capable of doing the job. I do not think that women do not run for office just because they have family responsibilities. Men have the same responsibilities and yet run for office more.
The article then states, “But the burden of family is not why women are less likely to run, according to Lawless. The critical factor, she argues, is that women are less likely to be encouraged to run and less likely to be considered as a potential candidate when a position opens up.” This is almost exactly why I originally thought that women were not running for office. In the present century I don’t think that people assume women can’t do things because they have to be housewives. I personally would assume that most people would chalk it up to some form of women not being supported or taken as seriously. It seems almost sexist to assume that people would guess that women would only want to take care of their families. It does not acknowledge the amount of oppression that women deal with in political and business worlds.
The article then states, “But the burden of family is not why women are less likely to run, according to Lawless. The critical factor, she argues, is that women are less likely to be encouraged to run and less likely to be considered as a potential candidate when a position opens up.” This is almost exactly why I originally thought that women were not running for office. In the present century I don’t think that people assume women can’t do things because they have to be housewives. I personally would assume that most people would chalk it up to some form of women not being supported or taken as seriously. It seems almost sexist to assume that people would guess that women would only want to take care of their families. It does not acknowledge the amount of oppression that women deal with in political and business worlds.
Blog 2
Although I did not personally like Carly Fiorina, I believe she won the debate. She was the crowd pleaser of the debate. It seemed as though most people identified with her options on almost every question. People cheered that loudest for her and directed most of their appreciation towards her. Personally however Chris Christy was the most tolerable in the debate. He had a few opinions that I agreed with and I did not find myself resenting him in the end. This was most defiantly a debate of political theater. The candidates rarely answered the question that was asked and when they did it was thrown between disses at each candidate. Blog post cites are very useful in political debates. It holds candidates to the truth and does not allow them to get by with lying. People should check fact-checking sites and not believe everything politicians say. Even though they are running for president, it does not mean that they are right
Blog 1
I think the most important issue that the candidates are facing is climate change. Our world is going through huge changes because of human impact and yet candidates such as Cruz and Santorum say it does not exist. Not only do they deny that humans have any involvement in global warming, but they reject the idea that it even exists. Paul and bush are unsure if climate change does exist, and if humans are even responsible if it is. However Paul, along with Cruz and Rubio voted for an amendment that had the statement that climate change was real.
Some questions I have in this debate would be for Ted Cruz. Why did he vote on an amendment that said that climate change was real, if he believes that it is a hoax? What evidence persuades him to believe that climate change does not exist? He does give an explanation to why he does not believe in climate change, however the evidence is vague and makes no sense. “If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming, the satellite says it ain’t happening.” I would also like to ask, what satellites he is referring to and how they are meant to monitor global warming? I could not find any solid evidence that he gives to back up his opinion other than the satellite statement. Overall Cruz does not seem to have a very strong argument against global warming.
Some questions I have in this debate would be for Ted Cruz. Why did he vote on an amendment that said that climate change was real, if he believes that it is a hoax? What evidence persuades him to believe that climate change does not exist? He does give an explanation to why he does not believe in climate change, however the evidence is vague and makes no sense. “If you look at satellite data for the last 18 years, there’s been zero recorded warming, the satellite says it ain’t happening.” I would also like to ask, what satellites he is referring to and how they are meant to monitor global warming? I could not find any solid evidence that he gives to back up his opinion other than the satellite statement. Overall Cruz does not seem to have a very strong argument against global warming.