“In the old days we used to blame people for acting imprudently, and say that since their bad choices were their own fault, they deserved to suffer the consequences. Now we see that these errors aren’t a function of bad character, but of our shared cognitive inheritance.” This quote highlights the point that this article is trying to make. It shows that the Federal Government has taken too much into their own hands that should be controlled by individuals. How could the government limit your soda intake? What's next, how much air you can breathe? This is ridiculous. Our health is our business and the government should not be able to tell us how to treat our bodies. They are our property, not theirs. I think the federal government has been trying to do more than what is in their job description, that is unnecessary and is overstepping their duties.
Women in politics has been an immensely growing topic ever since Hillary Clinton ran for president for the first time. It was the first time in history that any woman had even attempted to run for president and she did very well for her circumstances. This sparked the question of how would having more women in our political system affect the way it operates and its values. With more and more women running for political positions and two female presidential candidates in the race now this question could be answered very soon. Women are thought to have not been running for political offices because of their connection to “home”, their children, husbands, their families. It has now been shown that a woman's connection to home is not usually the limiting factor for them running for and winning political races. In fact, Jennifer Lawless, a Brookings senior fellow who also directs the Women and Politics Institute at American University noted that she felt she was treated the same as male candidates in her race. Women are not being treated vastly differently from their male counterparts which implies they have the same chance at winning the race which leaves mystery to what is keeping our country from having more women in our political system. If there were more women in our political system there would be more diversity in the resolutions of issues and new perspectives and thoughts on issues presented to the U.S. government. This presidential election may shed light on what it would be like to have a government with more female involvement.
Donald Trump said that Mexico doesn’t have a birthright citizenship policy like the United States” while at the second republican presidential rebate. It does. Trump although was not the only candidate to stretch the truth or just blatantly lie at this debate. In fact the lies were coming from almost every candidate. What does this tell you about these candidates and what does it mean for our country? Seeing all of these candidates getting away with these lies makes me question how knowledgeable they are and how good of a president they would be if they can't get voters unless they lie. Do we really want a president that is going to not know about massive issues or lies to make themselves seem better than the rest. Websites like “Factcheck.org” are exposing these people for their false acusations and fibs. There are over 9 lies and falsities listed on this website from the debate. All are very important issues being discussed and lied about. Should we really have a lying president? Or one that can be caught that easily? You tell me.
I think that all of the issues being presented in the debate tonight are very important but have to do with different circumstances and timelines. I think the most immediate problem we face today is our economy. While most of the other issues being discussed are fairly new concepts our economy has been in trouble for as many elections as I can remember and no one seems to have any solution to this problem. If the confusion over how to fix our economy continues it will just make it worse and possibly unfixable. Jeb Bush’s proposal for tax cuts is a “proposal to reform the tax code” that will “crack down on hedge fund managers” (CNN). This is now very descriptive but makes it seem like his ideas are centered towards wall street and gives no evidence that they are the real problem. I haven't seen any sources that back up his ideas. His arguments have merit in the fact that they try to accommodate all classes, mostly. Of course some things will just not work for everybody. His arguments dont hold up because they seem very similar to those of our last Bush president who arguably put us in such a bad economic situation. My questions are how realistic are the chances of any of these candidates having any “real” solutions that have not been tried yet.
|
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |