Outside Looking In

As the 2016 US presidential elections continue on its hard not to think about what the global community is thinking. As an American myself I can't even stand the current happenings among the 4 surviving presidential candidates, but what about our allies, what about our global competition? Its pretty clear for most that no matter the direction this election does end up taking, a large portion of American's will be unhappy. And as the 4 candidates continue to argue on we see how different all their personal policies truly are. Whether it be Trump promising to build a wall, Sanders offering free college tuition, Cruz vowing to carpet bomb ISIS into extinction, or Clinton covering up another speech or email, all the candidates have extreme downsides. Its quite clear that the American public is torn, I myself troubled by the offered options. But if we stop and think about it even further the outcome of this election not only determines the future of the American public for the next 4 years but also has the possibility of radical change in terms of US foreign policy. In the end it doesn't even come down to republican vs democrat but rather 4 very differently opinionated people all arguing they are the best thing for America's future. Many Americans find themselves amerced in the promises of a candidate, truly believing they are the future, but what about americans who can't seem to get themselves to choose the lesser of evils? What about the portion of the population displeased by the offered candidates? What does this say about our Nation, what kind of portrait of our abilities does this paint for the outside world looking in? How can a country be a global leader, when we in reality can't even choose a leader for our country?

"Money so they say is the root of all evil today"

Is money the root of all evil? Or does it allow you to buy materialistic things that can make you happy? Does giving mass amounts to others less fortunate or to a cause you believe in make it less evil? I always knew that there was a significant amount of money going into campaigns, what I did not know was the extreme process as to which it was obtained, and how much money was actually acquired...if you did not know, it is an unfathomable amount. I know we have focussed a lot on the Presidential campaign, so I have done some research on finances going into the election thus far. Below are some numbers found on how much candidates have fundraised, spent, and have on hand (the amount they can physically spend if they needed to at that moment). 

There are several groups that try to alleviate money from the process in order to level the playing field, though I always question if this is actually possible. Working on a campaign you realize how much it takes to get any sort of information to the voters. What they listen to, what they pay attention to, what will get them to the ballot.  To my not-surprise, what caught peoples attention was everything that money was mandatory for. People would even consider NOT voting for a candidate if they didn't have enough. 

Now, even with this being a blog I will get back to the facts of the internet research and findings from obnoxious amounts of sights that track every inch of the campaign trail. 

On Open Secrets, which is a .org website, has found that there has been progressively more money collected in congressional races than that of presidential races since 2000. Keep in mind that Congressional Races are every two years, while Presidential's are every four- virtually no gap that there aren't heavy amounts of funding going into candidates- not even an elected official, or government directly. 

So what is the role of money in our government and election cycle exactly? 

How is this raised? I have been fortunate enough to be let in on the little secret-phone calls, and events. There are enough spreadsheets with hundreds if not thousands of names, numbers, information, and dates all that have state donors, nation wide donors that all will be contacted. While working on a campaign I was exposed to jobs and positions I was even sure existed, but surely where there is money, there is someone behind it. The Finance Director of the campaign has sever spreadsheets with donors, from either past candidates  or the candidate and their history on who has contributed to them and they are to all be called to ask for a donation i border to strengthen the party if they win. There is also money that comes in from endorsements, the endorsers are usually well known community members or other elected officials, and they host fundraising parties so that way their constituents also financially back the candidate they have chosen to endorse. On the state level Senators hold a fundraiser in which lobbyist attend and is purely known to gather money in support of the candidate to run for reelection. 

All said and done, through the research and personal experiences, I find it sickeningly impossible to take money out of the elections. Thanks for reading my novel and I hope this somewhat helps to understand the process, "importance", and involvement that money truly has on us everyday, even if we don't realize it or if we are keenly aware of it. 

Links to pictures and information:

 www.opensecrets.org   

www.businessinsider.com

Thousands turned away at the NYC polls.

For this week’s blog my topic was on the issues faced by voters in New York within the past week. Many voters attempted to go to the polls this past Tuesday many were faced with issues of being removed from voter rolls, polling stations opening late, or not even opening at all. An outstanding 120,000 Brooklyn Democratic were taken of the list of active voters which accounts for seven percent of the borough electorate. These issues were felt to show a consistent failure by the Brooklyn board of elections and need for reform within its system to avoid future failures like this.

Due to these issues faced by the voters some turned to the law to try and work out the issues and retain their voter eligibility for the primary that was up and coming but due to a judge’s denial to take the issue at the preferred time, many lost the opportunity to cast their vote at Tuesday’s primary. Some of the other issues faced came due to the strictness of New York law, from voters not being eligible to vote in a different party due to the deadline being Oct. of the previous year 2015, to individuals receiving postcards that weren't fully informative of all the upcoming elections.

so in conclusion there're a lot of issues being faced by New York voters within that area, they have very limited leeway when it comes to the strictness of their laws, and the system that is supposed to be running things seems to be barely holding itself together. so like the mayor pointed out in this article at the moment they should let the central board of election staff control that list while they work on fixing the issues within their own system so that these issues or new ones don't occur in the future like possibly election time.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-04-20/after-thousands-turned-away-from-polls-nyc-demands-answers?int=a14709

Democratic Debate

The latest Democratic debate has come and gone and the gloves are off. Gone are the days of politeness, replaced with raw grit and determination. Senator Sanders attacked the frontrunner of showing poor judgement in areas ranging from Trade Deals to Iraq. Sanders pointed out that Secretary Clinton had recieved one quarter of a million dollors for speaking at Goldman Sachs. She hit back with reference to an interview Senater Sanders had with the New York Daily News regarding his hesitation when asked to spell out his core beliefs. A common theme emerged, that Sanders is the canidate with big ideas but that Secretary Clinton is the canidate that is pragmatic.

An intresting point that was made on the PBS Newhour was that Senater Sanders has taken the high road with his campaign in that he has mostly held off from going negative. He has had plenty of opportunities. From the house that she has to the restaurants she goes to. She is not just the establishement figure, she is the one percent.That being said, that fact that he has yet to attack Secretary Clinton is remarkable. He has said in the past that a negitive campaign is one that he does not want to run, but there is still ammunition for that kind of fight if he needs it. Being right before the New York primary, the debate was the last time when the two canidates faced off before the important state decided. It still looks like a win for the Clinton camp, the math is on her side. But every hit she takes take a little glow out of her campaign.



http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36052490
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZO6TC_EJrc

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Campaign Finance

Recently in class we've been talking about elections and campaigning. In last week's episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, he discusses congressional campaigning, and since it has been discussed in class, I decided to do a post about the episode. It used to be common for candidates to let others campaign for them, but that no longer happens. To gain voters support, candidates have to be more public and interactive with people, which doesn't always translate to money raised. Candidates also can't simply ask their wealthy friends to fund their campaigns. After the 1970 Presidential election, the Federal Election Campaign Act was passed to limit and regulate contributions to congressional campaigns in the hopes of increasing voter donation and participation in these campaigns. The campaign fundraising episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver shows that further campaign finance reforms are needed to make congressional elections truly fair and democratic. 

Early in the episode John Oliver mentions how in 2015, the Federal Election Commission reported that candidates in Congressional races raised a total of $1.7 billion. He also mentions how The Hill reported that House members spend anywhere from 25% to 50% of their time campaigning. Oliver also quotes a former Senate leader who said "A...Senator spends two thirds of the last two years of their time raising money." Congressional candidates raise enormous amounts of money for campaigns every year, so how and why do they do it? The how is simple: phone calls and fundraisers. From what people have said, making phone calls is horrendous. People have said they sit in cubicles with headsets on while a minder watches over them to ensure they're not talking for too long on their calls, and since they're doing this all day long for months, bad odors naturally collects in the rooms and buildings. It's disgusting and deeming for the people having to make these phone calls and some of the people making these phone calls are members of Congress. The episode shows an interview with Representative Caroline McCarthy and she talks about how on her first day in Congress, while during a hearing, she was pulled out to make phone calls to raise money. The reason why members of Congress have to raise so much money is not just for their own campaigns, but each other’s too. To pay party dues each candidate is expected to raise anywhere ranging from $125,000 to $800,000. Members of Congress do things like turn birthday and anniversary parties into fundraisers and this is part of the reason why voters feel so disenfranchised today. 

If you want raise money easily and quickly you pander to those with wealth. The episode shows a clip of Senator Chris Murphy from 2013 talking about contacting people with half a million or a million dollars for political contributions and this is how parties and candidate operate to raise money. It distorts their perceptions and behaviors naturally because they have to meet and appeal to people with fundamentally different problems than average voters in order to raise money for campaigns. Voters, volunteers, and even the candidates themselves hate campaign fundraising yet it has to happen. Recent attempts have been made to reform congressional campaigning and campaign finance, but since Buckley v. Valeo made money a form a speech, it has been difficult to pass legislation that could effectively change the system. The Disclose Act of 2015 would force more transparency on dark money while the Stop Act would prevent members of Congress from personally asking for money. These two acts would be helpful in campaign finance reform, but the Government by the People Act of 2015 would by far have the most positive ramifications. Though expensive (estimated to cost $500 a year) the act would match small donations of at least a ratio of 6:1. This would be an effective way to ensure average people have a fair way to participate in politics, but as mentioned, the act would be very costly. Govtrack.com even gave the Government of the People Act a 0% chance of passing which shows that some campaign finance reforms are futile. 

The last part of the episode, John Oliver interviews retiring House member and Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Steve Israel, The interview exemplifies the fact that the members of Congress are part of the problem with Congress and the reason why better, more effective congressional campaign and campaign finance reforms have not been passed. Steve Israel acknowledges how degrading and filthy the Congressional Call Center can be and even describes having to make phone calls to raise money as, "a form of torture." He knows how awful congressional campaigning can be yet as Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee he made no attempt to reform the process within the party. In fact under his leadership as Chairman, the party had record high political contributions. Steve Israel in the interview talks about hating congressional campaign, but did it and did it well. John Oliver mentions, and even mocks, Steve Israel for having fundraisers like breakfast at the infamous Johnny's Half Shell at 8:30 a.m. and various Long Island wine themed parties. No matter how much Steve Israel or other members of Congress bemoan congressional campaigning, they still do it and hardly, if ever, make attempts to reform campaign finance which just reinforces the American public's opinion that we don't have a say in our politics and government. The episode of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver on congressional campaigning personifies the point that rigorous campaign finance reforms need to be passed by Congress to give Americans a better say in government and politics, but before that can happen the members of Congress have to change. 

Source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ylomy1Aw9Hk

Could Mr. Trump's Taxplan take plan get rid of the United State's debt?

The United States is currently $19 trillion in the hole. How would it be possible to decrease the debt?Would it be possibly to get rid of it all in eight years? The answer, like so many others is "its complicated". Mr. Trump arges that one way the United States could decrease its debt would be to sell its assets. The spokesperson for the Trump campaign, Barry Bennett, said that America would be able to accumulate as much as $16 trillion by selling its assets, government buildings and land and energy resources. This statement has been refuted by the US Government Accountablity Office, They state that the United States has only $3.1 trillion dollors in assests, not including natural resources or stewardship lands. This would also mean selling offshore oil at a loss hoping that the price will rise, though it has lost 70% since June of 2014.

Trump also contends that he will change the tax rate of Americans. He has said in the past that the new tax rates will be set from 0% to 25% for individuals and the corporate tax rate should be cut in half from 30% to 15%. According to Ron Haskins, of the Brookings Institute,"With Trump's tax plan there is no way we could get to a balanced budget in eight years," Mr. Trump has put forth that his tax plan will not hike up the debt as the new loss of funds that will go to the government will be more than made up for with the clossing of loopholes. Experts argue that the government will loss as much as $9.5 -12 trillion dollors. Mr Trump has also said that he will not touch Social Security or Medicare, the two most expensive government programs, so where will the money to pay for all that come from? Mr Trump has argued this can be done by cutting $300 billion dollors in prescription drug costs. He also has said that he will lessen the strain on Medicare by creating jobs and getting people off of it. However, most people who are already on Medicare are already in low income occupations. It is unlikly that Mr. Trump's plans will decrease the debt.





















http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35974537
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/22/former-carson-campaign-manager-barry-bennett-is-quietly-advising-trumps-top-aides/

Trump's Support Deeper Than It Looks

Donald Trump has cooled down since the start of the primaries but thats not to fool anyone on how he is still perceived. Trump is apparently a hate or love guy. It seems like everyone hates him, you hear all the time that latinos hate him, blacks hate him, women hate him and even most whites hate him, so where is all his support coming from them? Most republicans would say they would be satisfied if Trump was the Republican nominee even if he wasn't their first choice. Trump supporters stem from college students who understand that if Trump was president he wouldn't focus on little things such as making a joke and having it be offensive to someone like we see today, nowadays if you make a joke you have to walk on egg shells, its kind of a lead by example moment, when trump says something that may offend people he just doesn't back down.Trump doesn't believe students should get thrown out of school for throwing parties like many school administrators do in this newer culture. The older people of america which a lot of them are liberal but also were born in an era when it wasn't popular to be kind to the other races, may agree with the things trump has to say about illegal immigrants. The New York Post says 70% of americans hate Donald Trump, so explain to me how trump won all the primaries, I understand its a system and not a winner take all ordeal but he must be liked by more than 30% if he's been rolling over everyone thus far. Trump is also getting some support from some of his peers after they drop out expect for the ones he verbally attacked like Jeb Bush and Cruz if he doesn't win the Republican nomination. I understand that getting support from one politician to another is "politics" and it may not be 100% sincere but it still means something right?

This year more people have turned out to vote in Republican primaries than ever before in our history. They have done so for a simple reason, they believe that America will be great again. The media tries to make excuses for his success, prior to the presidential race Trump was a celebrity, an entertainer, he knows how to play the media and gain their attention in favor of him. In Trumps case any publicity is good publicity, he understands the more he's on TV the more people are going to rationalize what he's saying. I personally don't believe someone who's never been in public office should be president, Trump is a real estate mogul, not a politician never has been. I don't think someone who has a lot of money and assets due to his family and his fortunate success in business should be running this country. I do in fact believe it is amazing how Trump can continue to keep and gain supporters when sometimes it really does seem like its him against the world. There's still a lot of time to go in the process but with Trump making it this far makes me doubt that anything can stop him at this point, especially in the primaries. The general election is a entirely different story.




http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/donald-trump-support-polls-221814
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/12/politics/donald-trump-rages-against-the-machine/

What does Politically Correct mean today?

             To be politically correct is to be "in modern usage, is used to describe language, policies, or measures which are intended not to offend or disadvantage any particular group of people in society" But what happens when in todays society everything said seems to offend someone? Growing up through the 90's and well as the ever changing new millennium I have noticed the evolution of the phrase "politically correct" and can't help but wonder if that even exists anymore.


               It seems that whatever stance, opinion, or speech is given by a presidential candidate the next day there is some news story on a population of people that claim to be personally offended it. And I have to wonder if this has to do with the millennium generation becoming a more present force in the political world. Over the years whether it be at school, a sporting event, a job, etc it appears that more people are becoming offended by more things. I feel as if our generation was coddled, raised under the impression that everything someone else says should not offend them, or go against their beliefs or opinions. But realistically in what world are people never going to be offended? In what world are people always going to agree on controversial issues all the time? In what world are all people going to agree on what is and isn't politically correct to say. 


            An article that really stood out to me when researching this topic was and article published by the Washington Post, titled "How politically correct went from a compliment to and insult." The author used multiple examples of political figures using the phrase "politically correct" in a sentence, and as you can imagine they are very different. For example Lyndon B Johnson is quoted as saying "I'm here to tell you we are going to do those things which need to be done, not because they are politically correct, but because they are right." compared to George H.W Bush quoted as saying "The notion of political correctness has ignited controversy across the land. And although the movement arises from the laudable desire to sweep away the debris of racism and sexism and hatred, it replaces old prejudice with new ones.” From 1964-1991 the presidential opinion of being politically correct seems to completely change direction.

        So in todays world  what does it even meant to be ''politically correct". There are feminists, republicans, liberals, pro-choice, pro-life, pro-gay, anti-gay, libertarians, etc. So how is it possible to voice ones political views and not "offend" anyone? I am in no way saying it is okay to blatantly discriminate, or hate on another group, but may seem to be offended by the simple presence of an opposing opinion. Why is it we can't handle hearing the other side without being personally offended? Why is it that only white people can be racist? Why is it that men can have such huge opinions on women's contraceptive options, and abortion? Why do we care if men marry men and women marry women? Does the concept of being "politically correct" even exist in a world where everything offends someone?

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-politically-correct-went-from-compliment-to-insult/2016/01/13/b1cf5918-b61a-11e5-a76a-0b5145e8679a_story.html


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct


https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/civilities-in-defense-of-political-correctness/2015/09/11/bb929ca6-58a2-11e5-b8c9-944725fcd3b9_story.html

Good Publicity vs. Bad Publicity

With the primary election in full swing the media always has something to write about, whether it is good or bad. They can cover stories on what each candidate said, what they didn't say, what happened at their rallies, how many delegates they have received and the list goes on and on. Sometimes the media can give good publicity or bad publicity to a candidate, but does either publicity dramatically change the progress a candidate is making? Whether it is good publicity or bad publicity the candidate is still getting attention. They are still getting more media coverage over other candidates and they are getting more people to take notice in them.  A lot of times in these elections people already have their minds made up on who they are voting (that is not the case for all) and the media isn't going to change this. Not only do the news stations and reporters factor into this, but social media plays a big role in the good publicity vs. bad publicity. From Twitter to Facebook many people are giving the candidates they do not like more attention than the ones they actually like. They are sharing obnoxious videos or pictures of candidates they are opposed to for the simple reason of it being obnoxious. Yet, in doing this they are giving more attention to this candidate than they should be. Sometimes the information they are sharing isn't even true! Some posts that they share have false information that they did not know was false. Instead they should be sharing posts, pictures, or videos of candidates they want to win. Jonah Berger a professor from Wharton School did research on whether bad publicity can actually effect a product negatively. In his research he used the publicity surrounding the GAP logo being changed. Berger found out that when this new logo was introduced to the public tit received very bad critics. he found that although the public did not like the new logo it had little effects on whether people still shopped their or not. Berger also found that all this attention seemed to give the GAP more attention, which led to more people shopping there,  "Evidently this boils down to increased awareness: the mere act of introducing something to a broader public — even by saying that it stinks — increases the chances that more members of that public will want it anyway." This directly relates to the candidates in an election. People continuously talking about a candidate they do not like rather than the one they do like is only promoting that candidate even more. This bad publicity does not directly have an effect on how well the candidate is going to do when it comes time to voting. Berger also learned through his research that sometimes when bad publicity is being put out there it gets changed as time goes on. Sometimes what is being said is misunderstood by some of the public and the bad publicity now becomes false information. When bad news is being spread through thousands of people, the information is sometimes changed.  

For example if I were to just scroll through my Facebook feed, not reading what the content actually says, I would assume that many of my Facebook friends are in favor of Donald Trump, but that is not the case when I take a closer look. Many friends are sharing pictures, articles, or videos or things Trump said that they don't agree with. They share these posts they do not like because they want their friends to disagree with these statements also. They hope that by sharing these posts it will somehow change their friends opinion to take the stand that they do as well. Some of these posts that they are sharing are not even accurate information, which is very misleading. By sharing these posts they are only giving more attention to candidates like Trump who they do not even like. An example of a post that has been shared multiple times on many social media site would be this picture (below) of Trump talking about Republican voters in an interview with People Magazine in 1998. This post went viral a little while back only to learn that Trump never actually said this. It was a made up post to try and get Republican voters, angry enough with him to not vote for him. This post gave Trump so much attention because people could not believe that he said this and some were angry. When this post turned out to be false, Trump was still getting attention and people realized they no longer could be angry because of this post.

Now there is the other hand when it comes to a political election bad publicity is going to have an effect on the candidates. You can say that they need a good reputation to gain voters and the bad publicity will do nothing but hurt them. There is two sides to good publicity and bad publicity and whether you want to argue if they're both good or not, but when it comes down to it and publicity these candidates are getting is giving them more attention and name recognition. People will start taking interests in these candidates because they hear lots of news about them. And in this tricky system of trying to become president, getting attention from the people is an important part. 

Sources:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/0b/28/3a/0b283a5a331d8fec94b3ffdd94e658ba.jpg

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/31/magazine/31fob-consumed-t.html?_r=0

https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/when-bad-publicity-good

Third Party Candidates - Yea or Nay?

It's coming from both sides - the idea of  a candidate missing out on their initial bid for the nomination and branching out to continue their campaign as an independent candidate. It's not completely unheard of to have someone running other than the Democratic and Republican nominee (Cue Ralph Nader). However, in the case of a Trump or Bernie third-party bid, the result could have the absolute opposite desired effect on either end of the spectrum.

While both Bernie and Hillary have promised to support whichever candidate wins the nomination, independents from all over the country are calling for Bernie to make an independent bid for the White House if he gets beaten out by Hillary (which, of course, would only be because of super delegates because they're unconstitutional and not at all because Bernie is running as a Democrat strictly because it would give him more media coverage and not because he actually shares all of the same beliefs as the Democratic establishment). However, at this point it would appear that Bernie is going to keep his promise. This may or may not be a result of his strong moral desire to do the right thing and keep his word - while that probably plays a part, I think Bernie knows that splitting the vote of the Democratic party would only benefit whatever ends up obtaining the nomination for the Republicans, and even he can agree that that candidate would do far more damage than Hillary could.

And then there's Trump. Ooooh, the Donald, a man of his word (the only catch is said word is subject to change at any given time). Back in the beginning of March, Trump was quite pragmatic about suggestions that the Republican establishment would try to run another candidate if he secured the nomination. "'If they run a third party or an independent party, if they do that, it will make it impossible for the Republican candidate, on the assumption it's me, to win,' Trump said. 'The Democrats would have an absolute free run. Probably you wouldn't even campaign because it would be impossible to win.'" (http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-third-party-consequences-220317)
Seems pretty reasonable, right? In his Trump way, he also added that the Republicans should stop their "foolishness" and get on board with the idea he could be leading the party into the general election. 

Now, fast forward to a week ago. An article from USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/03/three-way-presidential-race-late-independent-trump-cruz-republican/82509732/) states that Trump has not given up on the idea of launching his own third party campaign if he does not receive the RNC nomination. Interesting, considering he already stated that doing something like this would do nothing but ensure putting another Democrat in the White House, but that's none of my business.











Sources used:
http://www.votenader.org/about/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/donald-trump-third-party-consequences-220317
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/03/three-way-presidential-race-late-independent-trump-cruz-republican/82509732/

This years election "an Embarrassment"

Much of this years election has been highlighted by the racially biased antics displayed by many of the Republican candidates specifically Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The chaos of this years election has caused many top officials to speak out against candidates saying this years election is a poor showing of the American Political system. Secretary of State John Kerry specifically was highlighted this week for commenting on the President race saying " It upsets peoples sense of equilibrium about our steadiness, about our reliability" the target of his opinion was the rhetoric behind Trump and Cruz's approach on how they would deal with Muslims in America and worldwide. Secretary Kerry talked about how many world leaders he meets with outside of the United States are bewildered by the support they see coming from American Citizens who wish to elect either Trump or Cruz.  Although Secretary Kerry may not have directly stated Trump or Cruz's name in his comments, it was very apparent his comments were alluding to the Republican candidates.





When you look at and listen to the things both men are saying about Muslims not only in America but globally its scary to think people support them. Time after time we hear supporters at rallies or conventions talk about how they want Muslims gone because they are our enemy and because they hate America. These same people have absolutely no idea whom they are talking about because Muslims come in all shapes, sizes and colors. The depiction they have of Muslims is what the media and other people have created which depicts a man with a long beard and carries an AK-47. This is not all Muslims and its honestly ludicrous to think this is how Muslims are viewed in America. Donald trump proposed banning Muslims from coming to the United States if he were to get elected. How to plan to carry this out? Banning people whom look like the media depicted Muslim? There are not all Muslims look the same so how would you plan to carry this policy out? The same with ted Cruz who talked about creating surveillance units and putting them in Muslims populated areas in America to monitor Muslims. That would infringe upon So many Americans basic human rights and would push people to want to join extremist groups solely because they government is abusing their basic human rights. There are well over a billion Muslims with about 1% actually being radical extremists. Do you really think monitoring Muslim Americans is going to do us any justice or get us results in the war on terror? Absolutely not because the Muslim Americans we have living here are as moderate as it gets, they separate themselves from the radicals because they know radical Islam in the form of extremism is insane. So why push the people to join something we fight day and night to stop?  

Sources
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/27/john-kerry-presidential-campaign-embarrassment-cruz-trump
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-cruz-defends-police-us-muslim-neighborhoods/

Political cartoons, 4/5/16

Just doing a short post on the recent political cartoons for today, tell me what you think! These posts were my "funnier" of the many that were published. These cartoons were published by US news, world & report.



http://www.usnews.com/cartoons