Wednesday, May 24 Blog Post
My Article
In this article it talks about the United State's opinion on Donald Trump. More specifically, his recent meeting with the Pope. The author says, "You either love him or you hate him. And you see absolutely everything through that love-or-hate-Trump lens. If you hate him, you are ready to believe every negative thing on the Internet that even touches him. If you love him, you see only the positives." During his meeting with Pope Francis the media got many pictures of Trump and the Pope together. But only two of them were really focused on. One of them was taken when Ivanka, Melania, and the Pope were all looking a little melancholy but Trump had a big grin on his face. This picture was absorbed by all of the "Trump-haters" and was used to claim that the Pope didn't like his meeting with Trump. Another picture that was taken of Pope Francis and Trump shows the two getting along quite well and smiling at each other. This picture was used in opposite of the first and showed how well the two were getting along and that the Pope enjoyed Trumps company. The author then goes on to say that living in a society where we "cherrypick" the news to make our side of the argument stronger means that we are not in a good place.
This relates to Ap Government because it shows the medias coverage of politics. In class we have talked about how the media covers certain issues and what kind of things the media covers. We have also talked about how the media acts as a gate keeper; in which publishers can choose what subjects they would like report.
I think that this is a real issue in this day and age. Since the media controls almost the entire populations source of information, they have a massive amount of influence. If we can't trust the media to give us all of the facts and not just show us something to help their side, then I think we should do something to fix that. If the government is doing something illegally or they are violating someones rights, instead of someone who supports the government explaining to me why it was ok, we need someone to explain what happened and what they are going to do to fix it.
Wednesday, May 24, 2017
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
Wednesday, May 17
Wednesday, May 17: Blog Post Tenneyson Wnek
My article
In this article it talks about ISIS and how they are developing chemical weapons. In the article it states that ISIS is bringing in experts from Syria and Iraq to develop chemical weapons. The "chemical weapons cell" is located in an ISIS-controlled area of Syria, in the Euphrates river valley, near the town of al Qaim, just across the Iraqi border. US officials have stated that this location has sparked US military intelligence interest because ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi could be hiding out some where nearby. The article also states that the area now considered the "de facto" capital of ISIS because the previous capital, Raqqa, is under high military pressure. Officials are still making it very important to secure Raqqa because it remains an important military objective to defeat ISIS. US defense officials have noticed that much of the leaders of ISIS have been dispersing out of the city of Raqqa into towns near the Euphrates river valley.
This relates to Ap Government because we have talked about foreign relations very much. We have also talked about what Congress and the Presidents duties are with topics like this. Congress sets the budget on military spending and the President make most of the key decision on deploying troops and treaties which are approved by Congress.
I think that as a nation we are doing the right thing by protecting Syrians and the surrounding countries from ISIS. I think we are also protecting our own nation as well. But I would agree with some people that we have been in this war for too long. I feel like we haven't gained much of anything and this war has been somewhat useless. I feel like no matter what we do, there will always be Islamic extremists in the world. But if Syria doesn't have the money or military to defend themselves from ISIS control, then we have to do something to keep them from taking over. I think its not just our duty to help Syria fight ISIS, it's every countries duty. Because if they get control over all of the middle-east (worst case scenario) then everyone will be affected and the countries of this world will be at war with each other.
My article
In this article it talks about ISIS and how they are developing chemical weapons. In the article it states that ISIS is bringing in experts from Syria and Iraq to develop chemical weapons. The "chemical weapons cell" is located in an ISIS-controlled area of Syria, in the Euphrates river valley, near the town of al Qaim, just across the Iraqi border. US officials have stated that this location has sparked US military intelligence interest because ISIS leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi could be hiding out some where nearby. The article also states that the area now considered the "de facto" capital of ISIS because the previous capital, Raqqa, is under high military pressure. Officials are still making it very important to secure Raqqa because it remains an important military objective to defeat ISIS. US defense officials have noticed that much of the leaders of ISIS have been dispersing out of the city of Raqqa into towns near the Euphrates river valley.
This relates to Ap Government because we have talked about foreign relations very much. We have also talked about what Congress and the Presidents duties are with topics like this. Congress sets the budget on military spending and the President make most of the key decision on deploying troops and treaties which are approved by Congress.
I think that as a nation we are doing the right thing by protecting Syrians and the surrounding countries from ISIS. I think we are also protecting our own nation as well. But I would agree with some people that we have been in this war for too long. I feel like we haven't gained much of anything and this war has been somewhat useless. I feel like no matter what we do, there will always be Islamic extremists in the world. But if Syria doesn't have the money or military to defend themselves from ISIS control, then we have to do something to keep them from taking over. I think its not just our duty to help Syria fight ISIS, it's every countries duty. Because if they get control over all of the middle-east (worst case scenario) then everyone will be affected and the countries of this world will be at war with each other.
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Wednesday, April 19 Blog Post
My Article
In this article it talks about the first 100 days of Donald Trump's Presidency and how unproductive and lie filled it was. The author states that Donald Trump has failed to truly deliver most of his campaign promises. The article states, "A recent Gallup Poll shows that just 45 percent of Americans believe Trump keeps his promises, a sharp decline in two months." The article goes on to then talk about most of his promises, like repealing Obama Care. The GOP alternative bill for healthcare would have caused 24 million people to become uninsured. The bill would have also been linked to a tax reform and cut taxes by 1 trillion dollars for the wealthy. The author then goes on to talk about the wall, another campaign headliner. The author states,"Trump insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall, which he estimated would cost $8 to $12 billion", but ,"Mexican officials have been consistently adamant that they will not pay for the wall." Senator Claire McCaskill now estimates that the price of the wall could now soar to over 70 billion dollars which would cement Mexico's decision not paying for it. The author the goes on to explain how Trumps Muslim ban was ultimately a failure and that the people are fed up with his lying and bigotry and that the people were wrong for voting for him.
In relation to my Ap Government class, this article has great significance. We have talked continuously on the role and requirements of the President. We have also spoken on the terms of Trumps legislation in regards to his Muslim ban and his healthcare bill.
I don't think that Trump's first 100 days have been as horrendous as this author portrays them to be. I think that the news should just release the facts. No whiny opinions about how Trump goes about his life. I want an unbiased news source that doesn't say immature things like, "There goes Trumps Muslim ban." Most of this article is based solely on the authors opinions. He can release what ever information he wants based on how it helps his standpoint on this issue. All the other facts that concur with his opinion aren't included. I think that too much of the new source that people are seeing is the news like this and that why everyone doesn't like him.
My Article
In this article it talks about the first 100 days of Donald Trump's Presidency and how unproductive and lie filled it was. The author states that Donald Trump has failed to truly deliver most of his campaign promises. The article states, "A recent Gallup Poll shows that just 45 percent of Americans believe Trump keeps his promises, a sharp decline in two months." The article goes on to then talk about most of his promises, like repealing Obama Care. The GOP alternative bill for healthcare would have caused 24 million people to become uninsured. The bill would have also been linked to a tax reform and cut taxes by 1 trillion dollars for the wealthy. The author then goes on to talk about the wall, another campaign headliner. The author states,"Trump insisted that Mexico would pay for the wall, which he estimated would cost $8 to $12 billion", but ,"Mexican officials have been consistently adamant that they will not pay for the wall." Senator Claire McCaskill now estimates that the price of the wall could now soar to over 70 billion dollars which would cement Mexico's decision not paying for it. The author the goes on to explain how Trumps Muslim ban was ultimately a failure and that the people are fed up with his lying and bigotry and that the people were wrong for voting for him.
In relation to my Ap Government class, this article has great significance. We have talked continuously on the role and requirements of the President. We have also spoken on the terms of Trumps legislation in regards to his Muslim ban and his healthcare bill.
I don't think that Trump's first 100 days have been as horrendous as this author portrays them to be. I think that the news should just release the facts. No whiny opinions about how Trump goes about his life. I want an unbiased news source that doesn't say immature things like, "There goes Trumps Muslim ban." Most of this article is based solely on the authors opinions. He can release what ever information he wants based on how it helps his standpoint on this issue. All the other facts that concur with his opinion aren't included. I think that too much of the new source that people are seeing is the news like this and that why everyone doesn't like him.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
March, 29 2017
In my article it talks about the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell stated that he will be confirmed to the Supreme Court next Friday, "confidently dismissing Democratic efforts to block the nominee knowing the GOP can use the "nuclear option" to get past the Democrats' filibuster if needed." If the nuclear option passes, than the Senate will only need 51 people to over rule the filibuster. Senior Democrats have stated that they hope that not all Republicans back McConnell's use of the nuclear option.
This is related to Ap Government because right now we are talking about the Senate and filibusters. We have also been talking about the nomination process of Neil Gorsuch. We have spent the last couple of days talking about the happenings in the Senate and how it works.
Personally I feel that Neil Gorsuch sounds like a strong nominee and he will do very well constituting the law in the Supreme Court. But think that the nuclear option sounds very unconstitutional. It makes me think that the Republicans don't care about the people who don't want Neil Gorsuch in the Supreme Court because they're just over riding it. Like they don't exist. But if the confirmation process is fairly conducted, and the Republicans find eight Democrats to override the filibuster, then that sounds more American to me.
In my article it talks about the Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell stated that he will be confirmed to the Supreme Court next Friday, "confidently dismissing Democratic efforts to block the nominee knowing the GOP can use the "nuclear option" to get past the Democrats' filibuster if needed." If the nuclear option passes, than the Senate will only need 51 people to over rule the filibuster. Senior Democrats have stated that they hope that not all Republicans back McConnell's use of the nuclear option.
This is related to Ap Government because right now we are talking about the Senate and filibusters. We have also been talking about the nomination process of Neil Gorsuch. We have spent the last couple of days talking about the happenings in the Senate and how it works.
Personally I feel that Neil Gorsuch sounds like a strong nominee and he will do very well constituting the law in the Supreme Court. But think that the nuclear option sounds very unconstitutional. It makes me think that the Republicans don't care about the people who don't want Neil Gorsuch in the Supreme Court because they're just over riding it. Like they don't exist. But if the confirmation process is fairly conducted, and the Republicans find eight Democrats to override the filibuster, then that sounds more American to me.
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
March 22, 2017
In this article it talks about President Trumps recent Supreme court nominee Neil Gorsuch. Gorsuch was heard by a committee of Senators today and was hammered on many different issues. On most of the issues Gorsuch would state, "I have declined to offer any promises, hints or previews of how I’d resolve any case." As it says in the article, "Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said Gorsuch’s refusal to explicitly endorse key Supreme Court privacy rulings leaves doubt in the minds of millions of Americans.” Although Gorsuch has made his political opinion a mystery, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch says that he hasn't seen a better nominee in 40 years in the Senate. The article then goes on and states that no Democrat has pledged to support the judge yet. Although the Republicans control the Senate 52-48, the Republicans would still need a vote of 60 or more to confirm the nominee.
This is related to my Ap Government class because we are talking about the judiciary system right now. Even today we talked about the 8 Supreme court justices, who appointed them, and when they were confirmed. We also talked about Neil Gorsuch and his hearing was happening during our class and all today.
There isn't a lot to say on this issue but I think that Neil Gorsuch sounds like a level headed man and I think if he becomes a Supreme court justice he will be a originalist and "live by the law." But one thing I don't really understand is why Supreme court justices serve life long terms. I think that as our civil rights and laws leaders we can't have the same people voting on different issues the same ways. Since everyone else in Government doesn't serve life long terms I don't think that the people in our Supreme Court should. They should serve something like an Eight year long term and they don't have to worry about getting kicked out after making a decision. After their term a new judge is appointed.
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
March 15, 2017 Weekly Blog Post
My article
In this article, entrepreneur, Mark Cuban talks about how he feels the Trump administration is doing right now and if there is a possibility that he could run for President in 2020. In an interview on CNN Mark Cuban tells Jake Tapper, "Trump has No leadership skills. No management skills. Not very good communication skills." But he continues and says, "He's obviously had an impact on the economy so he gets credit for that. People believe in what he's doing on the tax front." When asked if Cuban will run for president in the 2020 election, assuming it would be against Trump, Cuban doesn't swat it down. He said he wouldn't want to say no but that being the President of the United States isn't goal of his.
In Ap Government and politics we talked about campaign finance. If Mark Cuban were to run for President I would assume that he would be able to use a lot of money for advertisements and rally's therefore giving him an advantage somewhat because of his wealth.
I personally do not feel that Mark Cuban would be a good president. With no previous political history (similar to Trump) I think he isn't fit for the job. I realize he is probably a good decision maker because of his wealth and investments but I think he isn't mature enough. Trump hasn't messed up anything really bad yet so I think if Cuban were to run for president it could be possible for them to run against each other which would be real interesting. Mark Cuban would be good with economics and creating jobs but I think that his expertise is specifically limited.
My article
In this article, entrepreneur, Mark Cuban talks about how he feels the Trump administration is doing right now and if there is a possibility that he could run for President in 2020. In an interview on CNN Mark Cuban tells Jake Tapper, "Trump has No leadership skills. No management skills. Not very good communication skills." But he continues and says, "He's obviously had an impact on the economy so he gets credit for that. People believe in what he's doing on the tax front." When asked if Cuban will run for president in the 2020 election, assuming it would be against Trump, Cuban doesn't swat it down. He said he wouldn't want to say no but that being the President of the United States isn't goal of his.
In Ap Government and politics we talked about campaign finance. If Mark Cuban were to run for President I would assume that he would be able to use a lot of money for advertisements and rally's therefore giving him an advantage somewhat because of his wealth.
I personally do not feel that Mark Cuban would be a good president. With no previous political history (similar to Trump) I think he isn't fit for the job. I realize he is probably a good decision maker because of his wealth and investments but I think he isn't mature enough. Trump hasn't messed up anything really bad yet so I think if Cuban were to run for president it could be possible for them to run against each other which would be real interesting. Mark Cuban would be good with economics and creating jobs but I think that his expertise is specifically limited.
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Week 4 Blog Post
Week 4 Blog post
My article
In this article it talks about the idea of removing Iraq from the Trump administration's list of banned countries. The reason for this being that Iraq has been a main role in the fight against ISIS. The article states, "Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also supported the move, but it remains unclear whether the White House has made a final decision." It says the new executive order is expected to be released later this week and that legal permanent residents (green card holders) are excluded from any travel ban, and those with validly issued visas will also be exempt from the ban.
This relates to my AP Government class with regards of Public policy and that Trumps administration is also listening and reacting to public opinion. Trumps executive order is a great example of public policy. In class we have talked about how public opinion can affect public policy but also that public policy can steer away from public opinion.
I think that terrorism is a very important issue in our society but we need a different way to solve it. By banning all of the people from those middle east countries we are taking away their chance of freedom and safety. America was a country built by immigrants and even though Trump is trying to protect our freedom I don't think that its fair for him to take theirs. Without immigration America wouldn't be as diverse and sophisticated as we are today. I think we need to put more money and time into the background screenings of people traveling to the US from those countries instead of just banning them all for being of the same religion as terrorists.
My article
In this article it talks about the idea of removing Iraq from the Trump administration's list of banned countries. The reason for this being that Iraq has been a main role in the fight against ISIS. The article states, "Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly also supported the move, but it remains unclear whether the White House has made a final decision." It says the new executive order is expected to be released later this week and that legal permanent residents (green card holders) are excluded from any travel ban, and those with validly issued visas will also be exempt from the ban.
This relates to my AP Government class with regards of Public policy and that Trumps administration is also listening and reacting to public opinion. Trumps executive order is a great example of public policy. In class we have talked about how public opinion can affect public policy but also that public policy can steer away from public opinion.
I think that terrorism is a very important issue in our society but we need a different way to solve it. By banning all of the people from those middle east countries we are taking away their chance of freedom and safety. America was a country built by immigrants and even though Trump is trying to protect our freedom I don't think that its fair for him to take theirs. Without immigration America wouldn't be as diverse and sophisticated as we are today. I think we need to put more money and time into the background screenings of people traveling to the US from those countries instead of just banning them all for being of the same religion as terrorists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)