This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
What topic do you think deserves more time/attention in the presidential campaign and in the debates? Why? Justify your answer with supporting research to convince your audience that this issue should be more central in the minds of voters in November. You need to cite at least 3 sources for this post.
Labels: campaign, president, presidential campaign
posted by Ms. Aby @ 8:50 AM
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby-Keirstead's AP US Government class in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on current events and governmental affairs. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
50 Comments:
I feel that an issue that has fallen by the wayside is environmental issues. However, I can understand the reasoning why it is not such a big topic this year. The candidates are more concerned with big social issues, like Black Lives Matter and gun control, or with the economy, getting jobs back and growing the economy (1). That does not mean environmental issues should not be brought up at all, because it is much easier to destroy a environment, which some politicians still do not believe is happening, than to fix one. Some traction in a similar subject has been found in the issue of clean energy (1), Clinton has proposed many policies to further clean energy in the country, including more standards for energy companies to follow (2). While Trump claims the climate change is not caused by humans and plans to undo legislation in place for environmental control (3). The reason that this should be at least more on the minds of voters, especially young voters, is that regardless of whether or not climate change is believed in, we have to live with the changes made to the planet for generations, and science has yet to progress enough to help us if something catastrophic happens.
(1) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/10/02/climate-change-cant-get-any-traction-in-this-election-but-clean-energy-can/#1f9b0d312eed
(2) http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/10/02/climate-change-cant-get-any-traction-in-this-election-but-clean-energy-can/#1f9b0d312eed
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/27/us/politics/donald-trump-global-warming-energy-policy.html
I feel as though the presidential candidates need to pay more attention to women’s health issues. Many candidates have stated their opinions on more controversial topics such as abortion or planned parenthood, but skirted around the other issues addressed by women’s health such as birth control, the prevention of STIs, HIV, cancer, domestic violence, reproductive health, etc (1). By avoiding to state their opinions on certain aspects of women’s health many candidates are preventing those affected by these issues from safely voting for who they agree with the most. Many voters are uneducated regarding the issues that women’s health actually face, which can be traced back to less than adequate sexual education in public schools (2). This lack of education directly affects these voters as they might be voting against something they actually want to vote for, but they aren’t knowledgeable enough about such avoided topics to actually know this. Women’s health doesn’t only benefit women, programs such as Planned Parenthood are a useful resource for all genders as it provides anemia testing, diabetes screenings, physical exams, flu vaccines, and other non-abortion related health care services (3). This is why it’s important to pay attention to the candidate’s stances on women’s health, as their support or lack thereof could massively change millions of lives by removing their main source of health care (4) or by promoting a healthy, well cared for lifestyle.
1 - http://www.who.int/life-course/news/2015-intl-womens-day/en/
2 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1494879/
3 - https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/general-health-care
4 - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/09/09/defunding-planned-parenthood-could-cut-off-many-poor-women-from-birth-control/
The environment is a topic that needs far more attention in presidential campaigns. It is the future of our world, and we need to start worrying about it. Our oil reserves will run out in the 2050s at current usage rates, and that will be disastrous if we depend on oil as much as we do today. Picture no gasoline, and no gas powered cars out on the road. The greenhouse effect is also killing our earth. The warming of the Earth created by the greenhouse effect will eventually melt the ice caps enough that polar bears will lose their habitat, and the ocean't water level will rise considerably. Arctic ice (measured each year in September) is shrinking at an average rate of 13.4% per decade. Clinton has focused some time on this issue, but little compared to Bernie Sanders, and virtually none compared to Martin O'Malley, another Democratic presidential candidate. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has widely spoken out on how global warming is a hoax created by the Chinese. This was addressed in the vice presidential debate, with Pence denying Mr. Trump's statement. Trump has also fought a wind turbine installation proposed near one of his golf courses. While Hillary is a far better choice on environmental issues, she could do much more, considering the magnitude of this issue.
https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/
https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change
Personally, I believe that the topic of climate change and the environment deserve more attention along the campaign trail. Controversial topics such as taxes and national security elicit more attention due to their immediate and obvious effects on people. But, when it comes to something so broad and unnoticeable as the increase of 1 degree Celsius over several years, people are more likely to care less. But, there is evidence that the environment is indeed different than it was in the past, and much evidence blames the change on pollution from cars and factories. Hillary Clinton believes that climate change is a legitimate issue, and she even has 30 pages on her website about climate change proposals, one of which calls for half of a billion solar panels being installed by the end of her term (1). Even though this plan is most likely too ambitious, it at least demonstrates how she is thinking about climate change. On the other hand, Trump readily dismisses the science of climate change, even proposing that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese (2). Despite extensive evidence that pollution from humans is harmful to the environment, Trump believes that it is not credible, and quickly changes to topics like the economy and national security where he has strong opinions. Despite this difference, climate change is rarely brought up in the public eye. For example, this presidential debate, climate change was only mentioned for a total of 1 minute and 22 seconds (3), most of that being Hillary Clinton speaking. Even though the environment seems like a less imperative issue when compared to terrorist attacks and unemployment rates, it is a looming problem that is sure to bring several repercussions if left unaddressed.
(1):http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/08/02/donald-trump-climate-change-hillary-clinton/87628818/
(2):http://www.businessinsider.com/clinton-trump-environment-policies-plans-climate-change-platforms-2016-9
(3):http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/climate-change-debate
Throughout the presidential campaigns of 2016 and the Presidential debate that occurred on September 26th, 2016, the issues of climate change has not been discussed very little; essentially shoved to the wayside in the debates. I believe that environment should be talked about at the debates, because these issues are going to affect how I live the rest of my life,and how my children live their lives.My opinions are furthermore supported when the Environmental Defense Fund website states"Climate and clean energy policies are all integrally linked to all the issues that top voter concerns in 2016"(1). This supports my argument that other people care about climate change Furthermore,the site momscleanairforce.org supports my opinion when it states" More and more Americans understand that global warming is a huge life threatening problem"(2). This shows that people do understand the dangers of global warming; which is another reason why it should be discussed in the presidential debates. Finally, the last source left to support my position is a PDF from lcv.org which talks about the candidates stances on climate change issues(3). This states that Trump said "Global warming is a hoax"(3). This quote supports my point, by showing that global warming is important to the american public, because Trump only talks about popular political issues that could affect his campaign.
1:https://www.edf.org/blog/2016/09/26/debate-questions-media-cant-afford-ignore
2:http://www.momscleanairforce.org/presidential-debates-climate-change-2016/
3: http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on.pdf
I think that an important issue that needs to be discussed during the presidential debates is abortion rights. While Mike Pence and Tim Kaine argued about it during their debate on October 4, it hasn't really been discussed between Trump and Clinton. Knowing the candidates' views on abortion is important, as there are approximately 1.21 million abortions in America each year. [1] This obviously makes it a significant issue, especially as Trump plans to appoint pro-life justices, in an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. [2] He also plans to defund Planned Parenthood if they continued to perform abortions. [3] In comparison, Clinton has vowed to defend Planned Parenthood, and is firmly pro-choice. [4] While both candidates have stated their opinions, most discussion on the topic happened in the early summer. Since Trump changed his stance on abortion five times in three days, [5] it stands to reason that his opinion may have shifted. Since this is such a widely discussed topic, reiterating their stances may help undecided voters choose their candidate. If the candidates were to cover it during a debate, it would also bring more media attention to their views and plans. This could be detrimental to their campaigns, especially as Election Day is coming up.
Sources:
1.http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/
2.http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
3.http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/donald-trump-planned-parenthood-good-work/
4.http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-video-ad-support-planned-parenthood-2016-120949
5.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/03/donald-trumps-ever-shifting-positions-on-abortion/?tid=pm_pop_b
The issue that I belive deserves more attention this election season is the state of post secondary education in this country. In the winter of 1971 Harvard University made an unprecedented move and boosted its tuition $200 to a whopping $2,600 per semester. This number and mid-year move were outrageous to the people of the time, however today many would kill for the opportunity to pay so little to get a college degree. Prices for attending colleges have skyrocketed over the past forty or so years and are now at ridiculously high numbers, three times that which they were in 1976. Now I’m not pro totally-free-college by any means, I believe there’s no free lunch and in the end somebody else is just giving you a freeride with their tax money. I do belive that these prices MUST change. The 1971-1972 Harvard raise had been cited to be caused by inflation. However, this is not the case with our modern situation. College prices are rising at about 6% above the inflation rate. I strongly belive that this is harmful to our modern society. There is always financial aid, but then the colleges still receive the money and still have a reason the raise the price, people will seemingly always pay it. For anyone with deep enough pockets this is true. Education, and the careers it unlocks, are the most valuable asset in today's world. However, if the price keeps going up, less and less people can afford it. Weather the government should provide more aid, put pressure on the colleges to reduce price, reform the secondary education system to better ready students for specialized jobs, or simply turn the other cheek are all valid questions that I belive our next president should be able to answer. However, perhaps due to Sanders’ extremist approach, they seem to be shying away from the topic. Failing to reform our educational system could be detrimental to our future workforce and thus, should be prominently featured in this election.
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/06/16/why-college-costs-are-so-high-and-rising.html
https://trends.collegeboard.org/college-pricing/figures-tables/tuition-and-fees-and-room-and-board-over-time-1975-76-2015-16-selected-years
http://time.com/money/4098683/college-board-tuition-cost-rose-inflation-2015/
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe the topic that deserves the most time/attention is the presidential candidates qualification and preparedness for the presidency. I feel that we as an American public deserve a president who is experienced in what they have been elected to do. This belief is definitely reflected by the media, with headlines popping up like "Is Hillary Clinton the ‘most experienced’ presidential candidate in history?"[1], "Is Donald Trump qualified to be president?"[2], "Donald Trump is not qualified to be president. And the American people know it."[3] and "Ronnie Dunn Lists Donald Trump’s Presidential Qualifications"[4] Overall the issue of presidential qualification has been in the news since almost the beginning of their campaigns. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, The Green Party and various other parties all want to believe their candidate is more qualified. The public should want a candidate prepared to lead the US for years to come. A candidate who has experience in the field they are being elected for, should, like with any job, be one of the first things voters deserve to know about their candidates. For these reasons, I believe this issue should be more central to the candidates, especially during debates. Giving candidates a chance to bring up their qualifications to woo the American public and the media into believing they are the candidate most prepared and most deserving of The White House should be a central point in this year's campaign.
Sources:
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/14/is-hillary-clinton-the-most-experienced-presidential-candidate-in-history/
[2] http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/is-donald-trump-qualified-to-be-president-228657
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/07/18/donald-trump-is-not-qualified-to-be-president-and-the-american-people-know-it/?utm_term=.45d33a7b3318
[4] http://radio.com/2016/07/12/ronnie-dunn-donald-trumps-presidential-qualifications/
I think education reform, especially mathematics and science, is an issue that should be getting more attention in the presidential debates. The issues that have been getting the most attention include Immigration, tax reform and gun control. While these issues are also important, they should not take the sole focus of the debates. Education reform is an important issue, because dependent our society is on technology, and with that comes the need for coders, software engineers and developers and countless other jobs that are need to filled now and in the future. According to a ranking done by the Business Insider in 2015 of the “10 Smartest Countries Based on Math and Science,” the United States ranked 28 (tied with Italy) out of 76 (1). On Hillary Clinton’s campaign site it states that she is vows “to make high-quality education available to every child - in every zip code - in America (2).” Donald Trump has been quoted saying that American schools are no better that of a third world countries. Though Trump has advocated that all students should have the opportunity to go to all types of schools: public, private, charter etc (3). Education reform should be on the minds of the voters and the candidates because how well our schools teach and prepare students know and in the future will determine the state of America’s future.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-10-smartest-countries-based-on-math-and-science-2015-5
http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/where-does-hillary-clinton-stand-on-education-reform
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/09/us/politics/donald-trump-education.html
I believe that a large issue that has been widely ignored by both our current and future government administrations is their plans for solving police misconduct/race riots. [1] Certainly the power to police belongs to the states, as delegated by the constitution. The problem, however, is that much like the civil rights movement of the 1960's what started as a state issue has grown into a national issue. [2] Two Fifths of African American's have stated that their police departments make them more anxious then safe. Race relations have been the worst they have been in years, likely since the 1992 King riots. And while the president and the candidates have mourned the loss of the victims on both sides, neither the president nor the candidates have focused on these issues that so harshly affect our union as Americans. It's been widely held that Americans are preferential toward the isolationist view. [3]If that's the case, then riots at home should certainly be discussed more than a war in Iraq in which we are no longer fighting. Bottom line, the race relations need to be discussed and the healing process needs to begin, because this will no doubt be a central issue in the US for the next four years, and Americans need to know now how the candidates will react to such a tremendous rift in the union.
[1]http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
[2]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/most-americans-hold-grim-view-of-race-relations-poll-finds.html
[3]http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-Iraq-war/2016/09/26/id/750295/
I think a big issue that isn’t being talked about in the political campaign is the Social Security problem. It is a fact that the Social Security Fund is running out, and it is predicted that many current workers are not going to get the Social Security benefits that they are expecting in retirement. According to CNN, the fund is estimated to run out in 2036 (1). That year is not far off, and as someone who is going to be in the workforce at that time I would like to prevent the issue now before it actually happens. Considering that the fund will run out in the foreseeable future, I really think the presidential candidates should be addressing the issue more. I think if the candidates would talk about this issue they would attract a lot of young voters as well as the working class. Working people have already been paying taxes towards the Social Security fund, and they might never even receive any benefits. With the baby boomers all in retirement right now or approaching retirement, there are not enough current workers paying taxes to offset those receiving Social Security benefits. According to The Motley Fool, “85% of Americans say that Social Security benefits now are more important than ever” (2). With such a large percentage of Americans concerned about the issue, I don’t understand why the political candidates are not addressing the issue more.
Even if the political candidates don’t make progress with the issue right away, I think that even just talking about it would be better than nothing. This way young people can begin investing to have a diverse economic portfolio so they are prepared if the issue isn’t eventually solved. According to Bankrate.com, one of the best things you can do to be prepared for retirement is to begin investing early during your first job (3). If the political candidates would talk more about solving Social Security problem then maybe the pressure to save so much money wouldn’t be so high, because people would know that the issue would be solved by their retirement and have money waiting for them from the federal government.
Because of this, I really do think that the political candidates should address the issue, and voters should be more concerned about the problem when November comes around as well.
(1) http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/pf/social-security-medicare/
(2) http://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/07/24/is-the-social-security-trust-fund-running-out-of-m.aspxOne
(3) http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/10-financial-tips-for-young-people-1.aspx
I think that a topic that has been ignored is science and environment. Not once have I heard either candidate mention it during their speeches or during news reports about the campaign trail. This issue needs more attention because it affects every single person in the United States. Science can tell us the weather patterns, and progress technology to for example reduce the amount of green house gases and pollution people produce. The environment is what we live in, and if its damaged we will eventually fell it affects. The candidates need to talk about hoe they will help this issue progress. The voters need to think about what will it would be like for future generations if we didn't help science and the environment now, and what the candidates think is more of a priority to them.
1. http://www.bbc.com/news/science_and_environment
2. http://www.livescience.com/environment?type=quiz|reference|wallpaper|video|article
3. https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/earth_climate/environmental_science/
To me the answer to this question is obvious: healthcare. Most people in this class seem to think that the environment is the most pressing issue we face as a nation. Granted, there is truth and evidence to support this claim. However, I feel that healthcare is the most prominent issue facing our country for a couple of reasons. For one, over the past century we have made many advances in medical technology - and it is mainly due to this that life expectancy has increased almost continuously in our country for the past 80 years (1). When coupled with the fact that America is aging (mainly due to the baby boomer generation), and will therefore be more likely to need health care (and for a longer period of time due to this advancement in technology), it is clear that healthcare costs are likely to skyrocket, causing more money to leave the pockets of the average taxpayer (2).
Furthermore, it is shocking to me that the candidates are not being asked more about the cost of prescription drugs. The prices for some of these life-saving drugs (and everyday necessities like the Epi-Pen) have increased dramatically, and this has had an enormous effect on families and their ability to obtain this medicine. The reason I want the candidates to be asked about this issue is because there is a good debate as to what the proper solution is. I know that, when thinking in a moral sense, it seems clear that the government should do something (say, provide subsidies to pharmaceutical companies) to reduce the prices of these life-saving drugs (as most Americans would agree). (3) However, there are legitimate economic reasons for the government to not impose a price ceiling or cap on these drugs; in the same way, there are legitimate economic reasons for some (not all) of these pharmaceutical companies to raise prices (4). This would be a fantastic debate to watch, because signs indicate that Clinton would defend the former argument while Trump would back the latter argument. Finally, the other reason why healthcare needs to be addressed is because it is a major part of Obama's legacy. For the past eight years, Republicans have united around only a few issues, but one that they have had a strong stance on is repealing Obamacare. There is little talk from Republicans about how they would replace Obamacare, and now is the time for Donald Trump to address his stance on healthcare, a major topic of interest and importance.
(1) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
(2) http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/
(3) http://time.com/money/4513325/drug-prices-cap-poll/
(4) http://www.wsj.com/articles/drugmakers-point-finger-at-middlemen-for-rising-drug-prices-1475443336
The presidential candidates have not given a lot of attention to the issue of the aging population and how that is affecting the economy. The two major candidates have put a lot of their focuses on the economy but haven’t brought a lot of attention to the “greying of America” and what they are going to do to counteract the impact of it on the economy. In an article I read on “The Atlantic” it said that in the 1950s, when the nation was at it’s height manufacturing there was less than 10 percent of the nation was older than 65. But by 2050 it will be at 20%. The same article also said that the GDP decreases by 5.5% for every 10% of the population that is over 65 1). This shows that the aging population of America would have a big impact on the economy. The increase of the population over the age of 65 is significantly larger than it used to be. In another article by Forbes 2) it talked about how Latinos have an advantage with the aging population, because they can fill a lot of jobs that would be missing after the aging group retires. This completely goes against Trump’s immigration standpoint which is strange to me because he wants so much to improve the economy. Another article by the Fiscal Times 3) talks about the way that the aging population is putting pressure on national programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and long term care. All of these programs require a lot of government spending, and tax dollars, and an increased need for programs like these means higher taxes, and pressure on the national budget. This is another big reason that the aging population affects the economy and why the presidential candidates should talk about the issue in their campaign. The aging population is a significant issue concerning the nation’s economy.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/10/aging-america/503177/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/10/03/americas-demographic-gifts-older-diverse-populations/#1c0dea5c635b
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2010/10/19/The-Graying-of-America-An-Economic-Time-Bomb
I think the candidates should spend more talking about the national debt and how to reduce it.. The American family has to budget money, why can’t the government? The two candidates have talked about creating jobs, and social issues but they have not talked about how they are going to limit government spending. (1) In this source it shows how much the government is spending and how much in debt we are. While watching the numbers rise some feelings of insecurity in our government feel over me How is it even possible to be spending so much more money than what is being taken in? (2) Quoted “The conversation in this election cycle has shaped up as: Which candidate adds least to the debt? That’s a far cry from a responsible discussion: Which candidate has a plan to put U.S. debt on a sustainable path so it’s not growing faster than our country’s economy? By that standard, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump both fall short.” This proves my point further. Either they are both not addressing the issue because it's too big, or there isn’t any solutions yet. (3) In order for the national debt to be relinquished every man, woman, and child would have to pay $42,998.12. That amount of money is like buying a brand new car for each person in your house. You may only have 1 valid driver but there is four cars in the driveway. Wouldn’t that be considered excessive and not needed? This is why that the candidates should include the national debt more in their campaigns and in the debate topics. I feel that I would trust the candidate that has a possible plan to decrease the American debt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/10/05/debate-questions-but-no-real-answers-on-national-debt-social-security/
http://time.com/money/4293910/national-debt-investors/
One issue that I believe is not getting proper coverage in the election or debates recently is the refugee crisis. With at least 6.6 million Syrian citizens still displaced within Syria as a consequence of the country’s bitter civil war, this issue is still as important as ever (1). Although this topic is considered very large and controversial, it appears to be receiving a relatively small amount of coverage by the candidates, considering its importance to the country and both candidates’ supporters (65% of Clinton’s supporters and 79% of Trump’s supporters say that the topic of immigration is a “very important issue to them” (2)). Despite the magnitude of this issue both to society and to both candidates’ paths to the White House, the issue didn’t even warrant a question in the recent first presidential debate (3).
I feel that this issue is so important to everyone in the country because it is both a matter of human rights to those fleeing the atrocities of Syria’s civil war and also a issue that is very much tied to our internal national security. Overall, I think it is very important to hear more about both candidates’ opinions on and plans for the refugee crisis. Of course, I am not saying that this issue has been ignored, as even just recently Mike Pence has been under examination after supporting Trump’s anti-immigration/refugee plan (4). I just believe that the issue deserves more coverage than it already has, and I hope to see it covered in the upcoming second debate.
Sources:
(1)https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria-turkey/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis
(2)http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/
(3)http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=118971
(4)http://time.com/4518963/vice-presidential-debate-mike-pence-syrian-refugees/
I personally believe that the two major candidates should focus more of their attention on environmental concerns, and mores specifically climate change. I have always believed this to be an important topic that will affect us in the long run, and with a country as populous as the United States, we should shift attention and acknowledge the fact that we can all help out as a nation, to build a better future.I think its hard for the older population to get a grasp of why it's important, and perhaps the reason that neither Clinton nor Trump will ever have a firm stance on climate change, and whether we should worry about it or not, is because it would possibly take away votes of the elderly. I mean honestly, a fair percentage of the voting population will most likely die in 20-30 years, so why should they have to worry about it? Even our current candidates probably have a solid 15 good years left, if I'm being honest. I'd like to see the government reach out to the population as individuals, as well as pairing with certain groups/companies to ensure and promote environmental awareness. (1) I would like to see further monitoring of the changes in climate, and usage of greenhouses gases, while simultaneously asking "What can the nation do to educate ourselves on this problem, as well as finding a solution?" (2) Perhaps we encourage schools to provide youth with a better understanding for their dark future if the government keeps turning their heads away from this issue. Perhaps awards and praise should be given out to companies and organizations who provide "green" ways of doing things that can seriously benefit the environment. (3) I think the presidential nominees should focus on promoting development for a healthier environment, and cleaner resources that our country can easily use. Education for the public to learn and develop an understanding for how our Eco-system works, and how climate change is real, is something that can benefit our future greatly.
1:
https://www3.epa.gov/epahome/statelocal.htm
2: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_increase_awareness_of_environmental_protection
3:
http://www.wri.org/blog/2010/02/promoting-development-protecting-environment
Climate change is an issue that has not been thoroughly addressed in the 2016 election. A mere 2% of voter see it as the single issue that they find most important in this election despite the intense weather that the United States has been experiencing in recent years [4]. It is a critical issue that is affecting the entire world. One reason for this lack of discussion is the fact that Donald Trump dismisses climate change and global warming as a hoax created by the Chinese [1]. Voters increasingly distrust the experts and people are afraid of the extra taxing that would occur to fund any environmental changes [1]. The candidates are largely taking positions on clean energy rather than the direct issue of climate change due to emissions and other sources [2]. This support stems from the economic growth that would occur as a result of implementing clean energy programs and requirements [2]. While Clinton has voiced her support and planned continuation of Obama’s environmental policies, this difference in opinions of the major party presidential candidates has not been discussed extensively [3]. I think that this issue should be brought up because it is a very real global condition that will impact the United States in the future negatively if changes are not made. Protecting the environment is something that affects not only us, but also preserve its condition for our posterity as well.
[1]https://www.ft.com/content/a221c20c-6abb-11e6-a0b1-d87a9fea034f
[2]http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/10/02/climate-change-cant-get-any-traction-in-this-election-but-clean-energy-can/#4fb8230b2eed
[3]https://newrepublic.com/article/124381/2016-presidential-candidates-view-climate-change
[4]http://www.gallup.com/poll/191960/economy-remains-top-priority-next-president.aspx
I firmly believe that neither candidate is addressing the issue of environment and global warming and the environment very well. While it was a pressing issue at the time of Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, as the public became more and more tired of hearing the same problems, the media gradually phased out of the issue that simply wasn’t selling anymore, creating the illusion of resolution while in fact the situation has grown worse.
Currently, both candidates have stated plans for environmental reform, Trump with his 100-Day Action Plan(1), and Clinton with her Clean Energy Challenge(2). Yet the closest we came to a discussion on climate change in the debate was when Clinton attacked Trump for his tweet that global warming was “a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese.”
With every passing year, the number of global warming skeptics dwindles further, yet it hasn’t been a priority in this campaign. According to recent scientific studies, the “point of no return” for preventing an average temperature increase in 1.15 degrees Celsius by the end of the century may be as soon as 2036(3). Taking into account the average speed of bureacracy and legislature in a modern government, not to mention the delay of implementation, the 2016 election is the last election in which candidates might be able to bring about change in time. Currently, roughly a third of Americans say they care a great deal about climate change. Of this third, 72% are democrats and 24% are republican(4). This bipartisan split over such a critical issue is worrisome, for even if a candidate drafts the necessary legislation, the current composition of Congress makes it very unlikely that it will pass through unscathed, if at all.
The evidence of climate change is overwhelming, and the potential consequences drastic. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has more than doubled since 1750, and we have seen a 50% increase in methane and a 150% increase in nitrous oxide. This increase in concentration has allowed the Greenhouse Effect to raise temperatures globally almost two degrees Fahrenheit. Another two Degree fahrenheit increase is predicted by the end of this century(6), although experts say that could easily end up being a conservative estimate. Each degree matters; studies have shown that the difference between a 1.5 degree increase and a 2 degree influence could result in loss of fresh water supply in areas such as Australia, Central America, Southern Europe and Northern Africa(7).
In conclusion, although global warming is becoming a more conventional belief, it is not a top priority more most americans(particularly republicans). As a result, neither presidential candidate has focused on it in either campaign or debate. I believe that this is a mistake, and that if we do not act soon, the planet’s fate may soon become irreversible.
Citations
1. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/energy
2. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
3. http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/08/14/the-2016-election-is-critical-for-stopping-climate-change
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/05/science/climate-change-poll-pew.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FGlobal%20Warming&action=click&contentCollection=science®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=collection
5. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-07/ghgconc2000-large.jpg
6. http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp#overview-greenhouse
7. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/210416-climate-warming-degree-seas-reefs/
Personally, I feel there is a major topic that has rarely been addressed in this election that will affect this nation greatly. This current event that the candidates are not talking about is the Dakota Access Pipeline. Neither major party candidates have made an official statement on the issue, but it is about time they did. Many others are saying that the main issue that is being ignored is the environment, which directly correlates to the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Pipeline issue is representative of the racial, environmental, and big business issues that have dominated this election season. It is a real world example of how the candidates would approach a project involving these controversial topics.
Clinton has claimed to be supportive of controlling climate change, yet has still not given a solid statement on her position on the Dakota Access Pipeline (1). There is another aspect to this issue, and that is the mistreatment Native Americans have faced due to their rightful protest of this initiative, which is essentially the government once again invading their land without their permission. Dogs have been sicced on peaceful protesters and Clinton has not said anything, but claims to be a supporter of equal and just treatment for all (1). Many activists are asking Clinton to step up and take a stand on this issue, but there has still been no statement (2). Trump, on the other hand, is actually invested in some of the companies behind the Dakota Access Pipeline (3). Although he has not made an official statement on the matter, it can be assumed that he supports the pipeline due to his investments in those companies. A lot can be shown by the way the candidates face this issue and will reflect how they treat controversial topics if they win the presidency, which is why it should be on the forefront of presidential campaign and debates.
1-http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mckibben-standing-rock-sioux-clinton-20160907-snap-story.html
2-http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/05/dakota-access-back-court-activists-ask-again-wheres-clinton
3-http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/6/headlines/donald_trump_invested_in_companies_behind_dakota_access_pipeline
So far, the 2016 Presidential Debates have covered a myriad of topics, including issues regarding the economy and immigration. However, the during the, debates, both Trump and Clinton have lightly briefed over and rarely talked about social equality issues, but more specifically, the Black Lives Matter movement and police brutality.
For me, one of the biggest factors in deciding whether or not I support a political leader has to do with their social views. From a personal, liberal standpoint, social justice and equality is extremely important to me; issues revolving LGBTQ+, minority, and women’s rights are always at the top of my radar. The Black Lives Matter movement is particularly paramount to me because police brutality and racial discrimination is exceedingly prevalent in today’s society, and the unjust murders of innocent black lives needs to be stopped. Although there is absolutely no question that I support Clinton over Trump, in my eyes it would definitely elevate Clinton’s appeal if she discusses how she would end police brutality.
Police brutality towards Blacks is an extremely alarming issue, because among all police brutality cases, Blacks make up the largest demographic of unarmed killings and cases where the police used violence (3). So far, in the 280 calendar days of 2016, there have been 230 reported cases of police killing blacks, which is about six reported killings of black citizens each week (3). Such high of a number is immensely disconcerting and the solutions a candidate would take to end police brutality deserves more attention in the debates. Statistically speaking, the issue of police brutality deserves more attention in the presidential debates because of the demographics of their voters. According to a report released by the US Census Bureau in November of 2014, out of all 240,000 US citizens eligible to vote, Blacks are the third largest racial group, making up about 12.5% of the United State’s total voting population, preceded by Hispanics, at 15.3%, and Whites, at 78.9% (1). Many important activists within the Black Lives Matter community have voiced their opinions about the 2016 presidential election, and have decided to sit out this election because neither party’s nominee has directly addressed and made Black Lives Matter a priority (2). These activists hope that, by sitting out, they will force the two parties to finally take a stance and create a plan of action to help Black Lives Matter and to end police brutality (2). Although these certain activists only represent a small portion of all Black voters, there is no doubt that other Blacks who also stand with Black Lives Matter feel that police brutality is necessarily an issue that should be discussed during the debates. Bringing them into the debates would give the two candidates an opportunity to discuss what they would do about it, and it would hopefully change the mind of many Black voters planning on sitting out this election, and dramatically increase the voter turnout rate for the 2016 election.
(1) http://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-577.html
(2) http://www.pri.org/stories/2016-07-20/i-aint-voting-will-black-lives-matter-reject-right-vote
(3) http://mappingpoliceviolence.org/reports/
Personally I believe that education should be a larger focus among the candidates in this election. There has been little to no talk in the hopes of education reform, something which the US has been lacking in recent years. Among other highly developed countries, the US places 26th in math, 21st in Science and 17th in reading out of the 34th most developed countries (1). This trend of dropping test scores is not good, but in the latest debates we haven't heard legitimate plans from either candidate. This may have something to do with the American public's apathy towards education funding. In a Gallup survey, they found that only 3% of Americans believe that Education is our most important issue (2). This is a problem in of itself because it shows that most Americans don't focus on the future of the nation, something that will mostly be decided by the youth of the nation which requires education to create a prosperous future. Another issue regarding education is the exceeding high costs of higher education in the US. With the increasing tuition costs, rising almost 6% above the rate of inflation, has gotten to a point where college loans have become so immense, it hinders the effectiveness of higher education institutions (3). Because of this, I believe Education should be come more of a focus by the political candidates, and plans should be given on this topic rather than just identifying the problem, or just making up a plan that sounds good, but actually isn't feasible.
This comment has been removed by the author.
With so much focus on economy, immigration, and gun control, there hasn’t been much light shed on the topic of energy. Energy is a key part of the environment and economy, so the issues surrounding it need to be more broadcasted. Clinton and Trump have spoken about their ideas for the future, however, they haven’t made it a priority in their campaign.
Many people have shared concerns regarding energy sources and global warming, and I believe it is a candidate's’ job to answer their questions and appease their worries. In March of this year, a Gallup poll was conducted that concluded 64% of US adults said they were worried a “great deal” or “fair amount” about global warming. This has been a 9% increase since last year. In another Gallup poll conducted this year, 73% supported alternative energy over oil and gas. This group consisted of 51% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats (1). With this issue already being central in many voters’ minds, it is worth noticing the lack of prioritization, so the public must demand more attention towards this topic to get answers. In both parties, there is a majority in favor of renewable energy, but this hasn’t sparked many big discussions yet.
Clinton expresses concern with climate change and the environment and as a result wants to provide clean energy. Her plan to do this includes installing half a billion solar panels by the end of her first term, so as to be able to power every home in the US. She also wants to cut energy waste by a third, make US manufacturing the cleanest, most efficient in the world, and reduce American oil consumption by a third. As president, Clinton declares she would launch a $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge which would mean partnering with states and cities to expand clean energy. She makes many promises in addition to these explaining how she’ll transition the US to a clean energy economy (2).
While Clinton’s plan for energy focuses on the well being of the environment Trump’s plan focuses more on the well being of the economy. His plan includes American energy dominance which will be a strategic economic and foreign policy goal. He wants to achieve energy independence by drilling into untapped oil and gas reserves which is said to estimate $50 trillion. Trump would also like to cut ties with OPEC and develop energy relationship with Gulf allies to battle terrorism. Trump primarily wants to save the coal industry and make regulations that serve the American worker (3).
Trump’s plan includes the benefits of offshore drilling, among which are increased supply, economic growth, and self reliance. However, there are cons as well which include the environment aspects which Clinton had touched on - air pollution and dangers to the environment (for example, oil spills and disturbed habitats). His plan also fails to mention the start up costs of oil rigs. It costs billions of dollars due to the exploration and installation process (4). Similarly, Clinton’s proposals have some high expenses, but it has the advantage of being highly detailed. More importantly, Clinton’s plan is beneficial to the county in the long run. These setbacks to their plans need to be evaluated by each candidate, so voters know what they agree with. The complete contrast of approaches to the energy issue also needs to be more publicized to inform voters.Voters, in general, need to have a more organized demand on what the candidates stand or to truly know what they are voting for and how they are shaping their future. Mounting public concerns also contributes to this need of prioritization.
(1)https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_energy_and_environmental_policy
(2)https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
(3)https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan
(4)http://nyln.org/7-most-notable-pros-and-cons-of-offshore-drilling
I believe that a topic that deserves more time in the presidential election is social security and federal assistance programs. While I feel as if both of the two major party candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have both somewhat addressed what they think social security and federal assistance programs should look like, neither have spoken in depth as to how they should control social security requirements and restrictions, as well as how they will prevent fraud in the federal assistance programs. Neither Clinton nor Trump want to cut Social Security benefits, however to do so, Clinton believes taxes need to be raised and benefits increased for those who need it more (1). Clinton defines as individuals who "need it more" as widowers and people who took substantial time off to care for a sick family member (2). Hillary fails to define how the benefits would exactly change to benefit these said groups, or how much their benefits would differ from those on a normal Social Security program. Trump argues that in order to execute his changes, the wealthy need to relinquish their benefits, however also fails to define specific parameters for this change (3). While both candidates have some sort of a plan in place, I believe that this issue needs more time in this election as the American population is continually aging. As of 2012, the percentage of the population aged 65 and older was estimated to be 43.1 million, however it is projected by 2050 that this population will be approximately 83.7 million people (4). Addressing Social Security and federal assistance concerns needs to happen now as over time, the amount of people eligible for Social Security will just continue increasing. The federal government needs to find a solution to address this growing population to keep Social Security sustainable. Additionally, as of 2012, 21.3 percent of Americans received federal aid, the highest forms being Medicare with 15.3 percent and the Nutritional Assistance Program with 13.4 percent (5). Trump has called out these programs, stating that they are ridden with fraud, however has not presented a solution to eliminate this fraud. Putting Social Security and federal assistance programs higher on the priority list for this presidential election will force not only Trump to address his fraud claim, but for both candidates to create more detailed plans for the future of Social Security, federal assistance programs, and the country.
(1) http://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/496067982/the-issues-hillary-clinton-and-donald-trump-on-social-security-and-medicare
(2) https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
(3) https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_federal_assistance_programs
(4) https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf
(5) http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html
A topic I feel must be touched on more in the presidential debates is energy and environmental policy. Although both candidates have touched on the subject, it needs to be of main focus considering global warming is producing a greater and greater effect on our planet.(1) Clinton's current stance on this issue is to ensure 50% renewable energy by the year 2030. Trump, on the other hand, supports the Keystone XL Pipeline project and drilling in the Arctic. Along with this, he even stated once that he believes climate change is a hoax devised by the Chinese government. Clinton seems to be more progressive towards the climate emergency, yet still does not provide the urgency needed to begin implementing clean sources. However, if Trump were to win the presidential candidacy, an even greater downfall of the environment's state will be apparent. (2) Climate change is an issued national threat and is expected to cost the United States economy billions of dollars each year. President Barack Obama has not even shown as much concern towards the global issue as he did in the 2008 debates, seemingly disregarding the skyrocketing temperatures, melting polar ice caps, and historic droughts that are plaguing our world. It is necessary for the current presidential candidates to have a more green perspective and keep energy and environmental issues at the top of their agenda, and not to unfortunately lose interest as Obama seems to have (Love the guy but he needs to step up.) (3) Some sources are also pushing to hold a fourth presidential debate specifically on science based issues, largely the environment and energy policy. It is scientifically proved that the climate change we are experiencing currently is mostly all human created, and it is possible to put a halt to it if the next presidential candidate is willing to get all heads in on implementing clean policies and promoting green living as soon as possible.
(1)https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_energy_and_environmental_policy
(2) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/23/us-president-debates-climate-change
(3) http://www.newsweek.com/presidential-debate-science-based-issues-502507
Personally, I believe that the that both candidates need to devote more time to discussing healthcare policies. In general, I have noticed a lack of discussion in this topic, as it was not covered in the first presidential debate. This was rather surprising considering the American people have fairly split opinions on the current Obamacare system. According to polls conducted by Gallup on August 30-31, 45 percent of respondents believe that our current healthcare system is hurting our country (1). Another survey by Gallup in 2015 indicates that 42 percent of Americans are still concerned with cost and access of healthcare, despite the efforts made by Obama (1). With Americans still concerned over health care and close to half of our nation unsatisfied, it is obvious that health care still needs attention from policy makers and the presidential candidates. Addressing issues related to healthcare will not only relieve worried Americans but could allow each candidate sway votes in their favor. Healthcare policies also need additional attention because of the role it plays in our daily lives. Most Americans will need health care at some point in their lives, especially as they age. According to data from the Census, the most rapidly increasing demographic group is Americans over the age of 65. By 2030, one in every five American is projected to be over the age of 65 (2). With new medical technology and these changing demographics, it is clear that our healthcare system will need to expand to meet the need of the American population in the future. An efficient healthcare system is crucial to not only human well being but future economic progress. A healthier population lives longer, is more productive, and saves more (3).
(1) http://www.gallup.com/poll/4708/healthcare-system.aspx
(2) https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf
(3) http://www.who.int/hdp/en/
I think an issue that has not been discussed enough during this election season is reducing the national debt. I think this issue should be talked about because the U.S. has over $19 trillion in debt (1) and neither candidate has elaborated much about how they are going to fix it. I could not find a position on this issue on either of the candidates websites. Trump's program for stimulating the economy would actually increase the national debt by $5.3 trillion (2). Clinton's plan would add $745 million to the deficit over 10 years (3). Both candidates have talked about creating new jobs and keeping American jobs in America, but have not adequately talked about any solutions to the huge problem of our national debt. Since Trump wants to cut taxes on the wealthy, our national debt would not be reduced under him at all and actually increase. However, since Clinton does want to implement some new taxes, that would help pay for the national debt, but not enough to significantly reduce it. Other than taxes, neither candidate has come up with a solid answer to what they are going to do about the national debt, as it continues to grow larger everyday.
Sources:
(1) http://www.fixthedebt.org/everything-about-the-debt
(2) http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/22/trump-plans-would-increase-debt-26-times-more-than-hillary-clinton-crfb-study-says.html
(3) http://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2016/08/03/even-hillary-clintons-tax-plan-would-add-to-the-deficit/#e9b381f26dd2
If there is any issue that I am most interested in being addressed, it is college tuition. Currently, college tuition is rather ridiculous, honestly having to pay upwards of $50k in order to get a job whilst also dealing with student loans after education which basically cripples most college-age Americans. I've noticed that Clinton has mentioned it in her debates and campaiging. Basically, she just mentions it as a keyword for young voters. I don't really see much of Trump taking a stand on the issue at all. Basically, the issue isn't debated so much as it is just mentioned for young voters. According to a graphic made by US News, college tuition on average has increased by almost 300% in the last 20 years while the US dollar has only inflated by about 60%. This is a very disproportionate change, in my eyes. In essence, I think that the lowering of college tuition costs, should become one of the main issues of discussion because making postsecondary education more accessible is a matter of making the US as a whole a smarter country. This also means that it will be easier to supply workers who are qualified for a high level job and generally make it easier for the economy to grow since having qualified workers, makes these education-intense careers more accessible which would cascade up the line to make the economy better.
http://www.usnews.com/education/best-colleges/paying-for-college/articles/2015/07/29/chart-see-20-years-of-tuition-growth-at-national-universities
http://www.wsiltv.com/story/33337059/illinois-legislator-pushes-tuition-free-college
http://www.cato.org/blog/clinton-back-debt-free-not-tuition-free-college
I believe that healthcare reform needs more time and attention in the 2016 presidential campaign and debates. Healthcare wasn’t mentioned at all in the first presidential debate (1), despite the fact that 75% of Republicans and 83% of Democrats think that Healthcare and the Affordable Care Act is one of the issues “above average importance” in 2016 (2). Healthcare is an important issue to discuss because at this time, 53% of people in America disapprove of the Affordable Care Act, our current healthcare system, while only 48% approve (3). Clinton’s current plan for health care is to expand the ACA, reduce the cost of prescription drugs, defend access to reproductive healthcare, and expand easy access to healthcare (4). In 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to “lead a task force on healthcare reform during his first term in office” (5). Clinton expresses the failure of this healthcare plan as one of her biggest political regrets (6). Trump’s healthcare plan is to abolish the Affordable Care Act, which Trump describes as an “incredible economic burden”. He will then modify existing health insurance, block grant MedicAid, and require price transparency from health providers (7). In conclusion, this issue should be central in the minds of the voters and candidates this November because it affects every single American, and has not been discussed enough in this campaign. America needs a reliable, affordable healthcare act that’s available to everyone, and the candidates need to start convincing us that they will be able to provide it.
(1).https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/the-first-trump-clinton-presidential-debate-transcript-annotated/
(2).http://www.gallup.com/poll/188918/democrats-republicans-agree-four-top-issues-campaign.aspx
(3).http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/04/opinions-on-obamacare-remain-divided-along-party-lines-as-supreme-court-hears-new-challenge/
(4.)https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
(5).https://www.boundless.com/u-s-history/textbooks/boundless-u-s-history-textbook/bush-clinton-and-a-changing-world-31/the-clinton-administration-231/the-healthcare-plan-of-1993-1317-9290/
(6).https://ballotpedia.org/Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_2016/Healthcare
(7).https://www.donaldjtrump.com/POSITIONS/HEALTHCARE-REFORM
One issue that needs more attention by Trump and Clinton in the debates, and in their own campaigns would be the future for Afghanistan. This month will mark the 15 year anniversary of the start of the war that has greatly affected this country (1). We first entered the country and began the Iraq war after 9/11. The war quickly became America's longest running war, and even after the long affair, problems still persist in this country. After our 15 years with joint NATO and US forces operations in Afghanistan, almost 30 percent of the country is being held by the taliban and other military forces (2). Only 70 percent of Afghanistan is being held by the local security forces. A war and effort that the US has plunged 4-6 trillion dollars into is only being held 70 percent of the way by friendly forces (3). We not only have lost trillions in the war, but between NATO and the US, Operation Enduring Freedom has lost approximately 3521 men and women serving in the war (4). This is a very substantial issue! Our official fighting in the war has officially ended, but now with the Taliban taking back the country, it is as big of an issue as ever. The debates and campaigns up to this point have focused more on fighting ISIS, and and it seems almost as if the candidates have forgotten the country left by Operation Enduring Freedom (1). The candidates at the debate talked about ISIS, but not really about anything in Afghanistan. A report from NBC even stated the Taliban watched the debate from a secret location (5). A spokesperson for the Taliban said that they “had been very interested in watching” (5). , They also stated that little was said about Afghanistan and its future, and that they became disinterested in the debate. The issue about Afghanistan needs to be discussed by the candidates in upcoming debates. We cannot let something that has cost lives, and trillions of dollars go to waste, letting the Taliban take back what we fought for. The candidates arguably do need to focus on ISIS, but at the same time, they must come up with a plan of what to do with Afghanistan, and a plan to continue keeping the Taliban from taking control in a country we worked so hard, and lost so much fighting for. I hope that the next debate will have Afghanistan brought up as an issue, and the candidates will have plans for this issue.
Sources:
(1):https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/27/5-defense-issues-that-clinton-and-trump-did-not-discuss-during-their-debate/
(2):https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/09/22/u-s-backed-forces-control-70-percent-of-afghanistan-us-military-chief-says/?tid=a_inl
(3):http://time.com/3651697/afghanistan-war-cost/
(4):http://icasualties.org/oef/
(5):http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-presidential-debates/taliban-watches-clinton-trump-debate-secret-afghanistan-location-n655276
One topic I believe needs more attention in this year’s presidential election is our education system. Throughout campaign and debates, education does not seem to be very high on the priority of candidates and it should be. If the candidates want to appeal to the audience of this generation they must focus on issues that impact it the most. (1)Students pay an average of $33,000 dollars in student loans after college, (2)and the total student debt is 1.2 trillion dollars for college students across America. That is too much especially since the (3)average starting salary out of college is predicted to be 50,556 in 2016. Money is one of the most important and valued resources in America today, and the fact that education is a major source of debt in America is startling. People should not have be considering not going to college because of the expenses is not okay. To help America we need well educated people and the cost of learning should not be the reason people aren't being educated.
(1)http://college.usatoday.com/2014/08/26/how-much-student-loan-debt-is-too-much-2/
(2)https://www.debt.org/students/
(3)http://time.com/money/3829776/heres-what-the-average-grad-makes-right-out-of-college/
While the candidates have spent the last few months skirting around a number of topics they have yet to breach, I strongly believe one of those issues is the Black Lives Matter movement and ongoing racism in America. While Hillary preaches to it yet does not act upon it, Donald Trump disregards its existence completely. Racism is currently one of the biggest social issues in America, with police brutality and mass incarceration of people of color. Black and Latino Americans are more than fifty percent more likely to encounter police force, compared to white Americans (1). While Hillary does talk about police brutality and racism, I feel like more action is necessary for it to prove the true intent of the candidates.
On the basis of mass incarceration, it's an issue on its own without the aspect of racism. Roughly 30% of incarcerated men in federal prisons are African Americans. This means that Black men are imprisoned at a rate of seven times more so than white men (2). This is due to many things, but one overall trend is a dramatic increase in the carceral system, a term used to characterize the normalization of imprisonment as a factor of social life. This is seen in America, where we hold over 20% of the worlds incarcerated prisoners (3).
(1) http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21702219-are-black-americans-more-likely-be-shot-or-roughed-up-police-quantifying-black-lives
(2) http://racism.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1354:a-contemporary-mechanism&catid=137:prision-industrial-complex-and-mass-incarceration&Itemid=155
An issue that I think has not been addressed enough in the 2016 election is privacy. There are many privacy issues that have come up in the past few years but have not been discussed in this election. For example, bulk collection of data was a big issue which seems not to be discussed anymore. Also, the debate over encryption has been forgotten in this campaign. Clinton covered privacy on her website but she has covered almost every issue on her website and also she has not really brought it up in the debate or speeches. Trump has taken no stance on the issue and has not brought it up in many of his speeches or the debate or his website. While the case of Apple vs FBI has been dropped now it is still important that we resolve how far law enforcement can go in the digital age. Over half of Americans disapprove of the NSA's bulk collection of data and it hasn't really been discussed in this campaign. So I think it is important that we talk about privacy as a nation and figure out how we can be safe but also have privacy.
http://www.networkworld.com/article/3124249/tech-debates/the-us-presidential-candidates-on-technology-privacy-issues.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/admiral-jim-stavridis-ret/apple-fbi-privacy-security_b_9404314.html
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/
A lot has been talked about during this election, but a major issue I feel has been rarely discussed is a plan for a more comprehensive sexual education system. In recent years, the number of people with sexually transmitted diseases, or STDs, has been on the rise (1). This likely because fewer than half of the states require sexual education in public schools, and of those, only 13 require that the information taught be medically accurate (4). Condoms are the most effective way to prevent STDs in people who are sexually active, yet they are often not covered in sexual education. More than 47% percent of high school students say they have had sex, but only 20 states require that sexual education have information on condoms (4,5). The United States also has the highest teen birth rate of all industrialized countries, which is likely because only 18 states provide information on contraceptives (4,5). People ages 15-24 acquire half of the new STD cases cases per year, and every year, 1 in 4 teens will contract an STD (2). I feel this issue needs to be discussed as it affects a large percentage of the population. More than half of the American public will have an STD at some point in their life (2). In particular, I think that Mike Pence should be asked about this issue, as he has said that condoms are ineffective and don't protect against STDs (3). I would like to see the topic of sexual education be discussed more in upcoming presidential debates.
(1) https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/2015/std-surveillance-report-press-release.html
(2) http://www.ashasexualhealth.org/stdsstis/statistics/
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mike-pences-bizarre-beliefs-about-condoms-are-not-based-in-reality_us_57961311e4b0d3568f83c768
(4) https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/sex-and-hiv-education
(5) http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-policies-on-sex-education-in-schools.aspx
I think LGBTQ+ rights and struggles need more attention in the presidential campaign and debates. Though both Trump and Clinton have given their stances on LGBT rights, sometimes the interviews they have contradict that. In Trump’s speech to the Republican National Convention, he said, "as your President, I will do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression of a hateful foreign ideology, believe me."[1] However, he has said that he would be willing to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would overturn Obergefell v. Hodges [2]. While candidates and parties have expressed their views on this issue, the nation needs to better understand the actual perspectives of the candidates in order to be informed. Hillary Clinton has stood with LGBT rights for a fair time now. Though she was originally not fully for same-sex marriage in 2008, she is now endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign, one of the largest LGBT advocacy groups in the US. In light of recent events and legislation, like the Orlando shooting and the North Carolina bathroom laws, LGBT issues are certainly on the public's mind. These issues should then be put on the policy agenda. Many LGBT voters are already not planning on voting for Trump [3], but making his stance clear could help him reach a larger portion of the population. As of 2011, nine million, that is about 4% of the people in the US identify as LGBTQ+ [4] and this number is growing as more people feel safe to express who they really are. As such a large portion of the American public is directly affected by these issues, LGBT rights deserve more attention in the presidential campaigns.
[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/full-text-donald-trumps-2016-republican-national-convention/story?id=40786529
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2016/01/31/ted-cruz-attacks-donald-trump-financial-record-trump-responds/
[3] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/06/16/lgbt-community-to-donald-trump-shove-it-you-homophobe.html
[4] http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/census-lgbt-demographics-studies/how-many-people-are-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender/
This comment has been removed by the author.
An issue that I feel deserves more attention in the 2016 presidential campaign is climate change. In the first presidential debate of 2016, the topic was only discussed for 1 minute and 22 seconds (1). This a very small amount of time to spend on an issue that 64% of Americans feel worried a great deal/fair amount about (2). Climate change has obviously caught the attention of the public, and it is time that it gets more recognition from our political leaders.
On top of this, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have dramatically different opinions on the issue of climate change. A major variation is their views regarding the Paris Climate Agreement, which Clinton would like to uphold and Trump would like to cancel (3). The agreement’s key points are keeping the Earth less than 2°C warmer than pre-industrial levels and causing “global emissions to peak as soon as possible, recognizing that this will take longer for developing countries” (4). The U.S. is not a developing country, and should be able to contribute to the preservation of our world as we know it. Voters should keep this in mind, thinking about more than what candidate would be right for the country, but also what candidate would be right for the world.
1:http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/presidential-debate-sunday-clinton-trump-climate-change/60534811
2:http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx
3:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/08/where_clinton_trump_stand_on_energy_climate_change_131129.html
4:http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/international/negotiations/paris/index_en.htm
I believe that global warming is a major concern in the world today. In addition, climate change should be discussed more at the presidential debates. Climate change affects everyone. Thus, it is important to know more about what the candidates plan to do regarding this issue. Climate change was briefly mentioned during the first debate. However, Lester Holt did not ask any questions about climate change. Climate scientists are saying that climate change has intensified Hurricane Matthew since the warmer ocean waters contribute to making hurricanes stronger. 2016 is on track to become the warmest year on record(1). In the first presidential debate, climate change was only talked about for eighty-two seconds. In 2012 debates, climate change was not even brought up at all. In 2000, climate change was talked about for fourteen minutes in the debates which is the longest time ever(2). This may be because Gore was a very strong supporter of resolving global warming. Hillary Clinton briefly brought it up saying Trump called it a hoax. Trump denied it. Actually, he tweeted in 2012 that the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive(3). Climate change has obviously not been talked about as much as it should be. It is an important topic because it is a reality, and it has drastic effects on all.
(1)http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/6/atmospheric_scientist_donald_trump_mike_pence
(2)http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/presidential-debate-sunday-clinton-trump-climate-change/60534811
(3)http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential-debate-donald-trump-china-climate-change/
I think that the environment and environmental issues is a topic that deserves more attention throughout the presidential campaign. Since the futures of our lives can depend on the future of the environment, I believe it would be good to hear more from the presidential candidates on their plans regarding environmental issues. In recent times, the worry over the environment has risen greatly, with recent findings showing that 64% of Americans say they are worried some amount about global warming(1). In the first presidential debate, only 1 minute and 22 seconds was dedicated to talking about the environment(2), a very short amount of time considering how many Americans are worried about this issue. Personally, I do not know much about either candidates plan regarding environmental issues since it is not a topic that has been talked about or debated as much as other big issues. Also, according to a poll done by Washington Post / ABC News, 58% of voters say they would favor a candidate that will take action against climate change(3). With the amount of voters concerned with global warming and the amount of voters looking for a candidate that will take action against climate change, it is obvious that environment is an issue that deserves more time and talk as the presidential debates continue.
(1) http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/concern-environmental-issues-rises-ahead-2016-election
(2) http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/09/climate-change-debate
(3) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/the-environment-and-the-2_b_7965156.html
I think that an issue that deserves more coverage in the presidential debates is the issue of racial equality, specifically the Black Lives Matter movement. Since the beginning of 2016, over 700 people have been killed by police, less than half of which were white, and a quarter of whom were black. Despite the amount of public discussion [1] and the divisiveness of these issues, they have been mentioned in passing, but both candidates seem hesitant to openly discuss the issue[2]. The amount of public outcry about police shootings and violence over the past year has been monumental, and has created a social movement, and spurred a number of protests (though some would use the term riots) in cities across the country, including the Twin Cities. [3] Even if the issue of racial equality is extremely divisive, it has played a large part in shaping politics in the past year, and neither party's platform, nor the recent debates have reflected this. This election is currently very close, and neither candidate is willing to do anything that might lose them votes, even if it is something that many people feel needs to be discussed
[1] http://www.fox32chicago.com/news/dont-miss/210611674-story
[2] https://theintercept.com/2016/10/07/harvey-weinstein-urged-clinton-campaign-to-silence-sanderss-black-lives-matter-message/
[3] http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2016/07/14/stand-with-minnesota-lynx-facebook-page/
I think that the topic that needs even more discussion in the presidential race is that of the economy. Although this has been one of the points talked about a lot in the debates and by the mass media, I still think it warrants more discussion. I think this because it is the deciding factor of most of America’s problems. If the economy improves, more jobs and more wealth for the majority of Americans will cause less crime. If the economy grows there will potentially be less anger between races. It would allow for a stronger and more prosperous federal government, more ordered state governments, and a private sector that would again be on top of the world. This is especially necessary because of the economic position that the US is in right now. Through Obama’s presidency, the national debt grew more than all 42 other presidencies combined, it is now over 56 trillion dollars (1). The struggling middle class is also evident, almost 43 percent of American households spend more than they make each month (2). Also, almost 48 percent of Americans are classified as “low income”. I believe that solving the problem of the US economy will directly solve all of these troubling statistics, as well as a lot of America’s other worrying problems.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2013/05/29/20-surprising-facts-about-us-economy.html
http://www.infowars.com/58-facts-about-the-u-s-economy-from-2015-that-are-almost-too-crazy-to-believe/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/18/50-facts-about-the-u-s-economy-that-will-shock-you/
The biggest topic which needs to be present in the presidential campaign is third party candidates. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are the most unfavorable major party candidates ever (3), polling at 60% and 59% unfavorability respectively (1). People hate them because of their past deeds and simply cannot forget them, be it Trump's multiple scandals with women and tax fraud or Clinton's email scandal (2). This should provide the perfect window for a third party candidate to come in and blow them out of the water, but people are still not paying attention to alternatives, despite hating both of the major party candidates. If we allowed a third party candidate into the debates we might actually get something done at them, rather than hurling insults for an hour and a half.
(1) http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/31/poll-clinton-trump-most-unfavorable-candidates-ever/89644296/
(2) http://fortune.com/2016/07/06/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-2/
(3) http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-distaste-for-both-trump-and-clinton-is-record-breaking/
To me a topic that has not come up enough in this election is what the presidential candidates would do to address the nationwide problem of sexual assault on college campuses. To me it is clear that one candidate could have a plan for combating sexual assaults on campus while the other thinks they can get away with saying anything by calling it “locker room talk”, even though he has been accused numerous times of sexually assaulting women. As someone who is going on to college next year it is alarming to learn that one in every five women and one in every 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college (1). This is something that I have to take into consideration every time I go on a college visit. I have to think if this school is safe enough and if I were to be sexually assaulted will they do something about it. Too many times do sexual assaults, on a college campus, go unreported, 90% to be exact (1). Almost 10% of these cases go unreported because they believed that it wouldn’t do any good (2). And they are not necessarily wrong, because of issues in the country's criminal justice system, of every 1000 reports of sexual assault, 13 will be referred to a prosecutor and 7 of those become felony convictions (3). This is where it is important to find out what our presidential candidates can make a difference. It’s clear that our criminal justice system is corrupt at some of the highest levels, and changes that can be made to the system could lead to creating equality in the sentencing of people of color and Caucasians. Sexual assaults on college campus is only the beginning of reforming a corrupt justice system. As candidates for the highest office in the country I think it is very important to address the problems in the system, especially when it comes to sexual assault.
(1)http://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf
(2) https://www.rainn.org/statistics/campus-sexual-violence
(3) https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-expect-criminal-justice-system
A topic I believe that should be more addressed is what our taxes will be used for, I feel as if the candidates only talk about how much to tax and less of what they tend to use the money for. Star Tribune reports that 17 billion dollars of Minnesota tax money will be spent on education this year, I think this is something the candidates should explain to a further extent. The Brainerd Dispatch states that a surplus in the Minnesota tax money will lead to robust highway spending, the presidential candidates should state a plan discussing how and when the tax money should be used so surpluses do not go to waste. cbpp.org states that 602 billion dollars of federal tax revenue will be spent on defense and security related international activities, without really explaining what that means exactly. I feel as if the candidates need to specify how each section of taxes are spent, such as how much of the military budget is spent on the actual machines, and how much is going towards salaries and college for soldiers.
http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-tax-collection-and-spending/360507271/
http://www.brainerddispatch.com/news/4144823-crow-wing-county-board-sales-tax-leads-robust-highway-spending
http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/policy-basics-where-do-our-federal-tax-dollars-go
Education is one issue that has been neglected not only in this presidential election, but by the country as a whole, specifically sexual education. I don't necessarily believe that it has to be a huge part of the presidential election but I think it would be cool for a candidate to acknowledge the problem and propose a solution. The problem starts at Americas conservative abstinence only approach to sex ed(2). Less than half of the states require some sort of sexual education and only 13 require information to be "Medically accurate"(3). Compared to other industrialized nations like the Netherlands, we fall far behind on this topic. American teen birth rates are up to four times are higher than some European countries. Also American teenagers collectively acquire around 3 million sexually transmitted infections per year which is absolutely ridiculous and preventable. The Netherlands have a extremely comprehensive and effective sex ed system. Dutch children start sex ed as early as four years and are taught throughout their whole education about relationships, sexual orientation and safe practices, just to name a few. But there's more consequences to our flaws system beyond teen pregnancy and STDs/HIV, it's our misconceptions that are formed about sex because of the way we are taught. Americas scare tactics makes sex seeming like something we should fear when in reality, when consensual and safe there really isn't much wrong with it. Americas deeply conservative and religious views on this subject make it seem dangerous and something to fear. One metaphorical activity performed in US sex ed classes involves a piece of tape that you get and you stick it on other people then ripped off, because tape is sticky it gets dirty and looses its stickiness with every person you stick it on. The tape represents virginity (almost always a woman’s), and what students are supposed to learn that the more people you stick to the dirtier you become and the less valuable you are. This metaphor has stuck in the minds of many young women and perpetually damaged their mental processes when it comes to sex. Also this places a bigger stigma on women's sex life, while for men it isn't as big of a deal. American students don't learn much about sexual orientations and acceptance, pleasure, consent, or healthy relationships compared to their European counterparts. An issue in the election that coincides with this issue is Trumps "locker room talk," which essentially normalizes rape culture which is another major problem in America that could be fixed by a more comprehensive approach to sexual education. Unfortunately because in America we aren't taught about how to comfortably talk about sex, this issue seems awkward and is therefore avoided. I'm willing yo bet that at some point while reading this article you felt some discomfort, and its too late for changes to be made for our advantage, but its not to late for future students to grow up and be better off.
1. http://fusion.net/story/201169/sex-education-in-america-sucks/
2. http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/29920-attitudes-and-outcomes-of-sex-ed-the-us-vs-the-netherlands
3. https://www.bustle.com/articles/104233-7-problems-with-the-state-of-sex-ed-in-america-today-and-how-we-can-make
I think that one of the issues that I really want to see talked about is the inability for Democrats and Republicans to work together. This has been a problem for many years and this is the main reason for the government shutdown 2013-2014. I think that this should be an issue that should be brought up especially between two candidates. The two candidates who are running for president are hated by the other party and I think that they need to talk about how they will work with the other party to avoid another shutdown. I think that this is a huge issue that needs to be fixed because consistently the two parties just point fingers at the other party for why we are in such a mess which needs to be fixed. Another big one I think that needs to be talked about is climate change. Its discussed but it’s not covered well at all. This needs to be discussed because the amount of carbon dioxide is increasing and the amount of oxygen is decreasing. This may not be a huge issue right at this very moment, but it could be a gigantic issue in 20 years, and we need to start building programs now so when it becomes this huge issue we are ready to change so we don’t lose this earth.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/why-did-the-us-government_b_4064789.html
http://fortune.com/2016/10/20/presidential-debates-climate-change-wall-street-black-lives-matter/
https://www.nwf.org/Eco-Schools-USA/Become-an-Eco-School/Pathways/Climate-Change/Facts.aspx
An important issue that I feel has been neglected during this election is the problem of mass incarceration. Personally, I have not seen any coverage of this by either candidate, despite the incredible importance of the issue. According to the ACLU, though the US represents only 5% of the global population, it holds 25% of the global prison population (1). Considering the sheer amount of people on Earth, that difference is enormous and concerning. In addition, black people are incarcerated for drug offenses at a rate 10 times higher than white people, even though drug use is roughly the same within each race (1). This statistic is especially significant, as 1 in 5 incarcerated people are incarcerated for a drug offense (2). The costs associated with incarceration are also staggering — America spends over eighty billion dollars on incarceration each year (1). In addition to costs related to maintaining a prison, families of an incarcerated person also must pay for expensive court fees, frequently leaving them in debt. As a report from the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights states, "Poverty, in particular, perpetuates the cycle of incarceration, while incarceration itself leads to greater poverty" (3). The whole issue is a vicious cycle, repeatedly worsening the condition of incarceration in the United States.
Mass incarceration has effects on the economy, on impoverished families, on population, and on race. This, to me, signifies a multifaceted issue that permeates many broad issues in America and therefore should more commonly be addressed by candidates.
1:https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration
2:https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2016.html
3:http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/the-true-costs-of-mass-incarceration/405412/
I think that the topic of racial injustice should be a bigger topic in campaigns and debates because it affects so much of the population and racism is a big problem. It may not seem like it to white people but to people of color, it is a problem. It is somewhat talked about in campaigns and debates but it should be as big a topic as the economy and immigration. Soon the minority will be the majority in America. The judicial system is corrupted because cops who act with racism towards a person of color are not charged. Even the cops who shot people for no reason were not charged and that needs to change so people of color do not have to be scared of the cops like they are now.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-07-13/why-arent-police-held-accountable-for-shooting-black-men
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-no-charges-for-new-jersey-cop-in-slaying-of-black-man-with-hands-up-2016-8
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home