Response to Post 3
Read your classmates' answers to "What topic do you think deserves more time/attention in the presidential campaign and in the debates? Why?"
Do not answer someone's post if they said the same or similar issue as you did. Be sure to look at their sources.
In your answer please respond with why you think this issue isn't as important as your issue or why they have persuaded you that is more important.
This post is due by the end of the day on Friday, October 14th.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 7:06 AM
54 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
One issue that many people believe needs more attention from the candidates is the topic of education. I agree with this, since there has been relatively little talk of reforms to the education system, especially in comparison to Bernie Sanders' platform of free public college, which captured the votes and admiration of young voters across America. Education has obviously become extremely expensive, and this is true even when inflation is taken into account. Most college students are tasked with balancing their schoolwork, extracurriculars, jobs, and finances, which can become extremely exhausting after two or four years. For years, possibly decades after graduation, students are paying off college loans, restricting their financial freedom. Even though I still believe that climate change is a more important issue overall, since it affects our planet, as well as all humans, rather than just those who attend college. But, I believe that a more effective and affordable education system could lead to the solutions of various other problems. For example, if some of the financial stress of attending college was taken away, more people would be willing to attend college, leading to a more educated society that would be able to find solutions for larger issues like climate change and racial inequality. Even if it isn't necessarily the most dire and pressing issue, it is an issue that if resolved could lead to a better society in many ways. In addition, if the topic of college education was mentioned more by the candidates, it would capture the attention of young voters, since this issue generally directly affects them. As we already know, young voters are usually the demographic that tend to show up to vote less. So, hopefully if education is discussed more, it wouldn't just raise awareness about college costs, but it would also increase voting rates among young adults. It is for these reasons that education should receive more publicity in the last month or so of the candidates' campaigns.
I read a post that said an issue that needs to be discussed more is the qualification of the candidates. I agree with the author, that America needs a qualified president, but at this point in the race, there is nothing we can do about qualifications. While I don’t believe Trump is qualified to be president, he is the Republican nominee, and he is getting votes. The people supporting him believe he is qualified, and there is almost certainly nothing that discussion in the debates can do to change that. I believe healthcare is a more important issue because it is something that there is still time to fix, it’s something affecting millions of Americans on a daily basis. While the qualifications of our candidates is important, we have passed a point of no return on that issue. Healthcare reform needs to happen, no matter what candidate we have, which is why it’s a more important issue.
A common theme throughout many of the blog posts was that the candidates should put more emphasis on the issue of police brutality. Specifically, Jordan J and Cheri W discuss the severity of the problem, and how it should be a bigger topic in the presidential campaigns and debates. Some of the facts Cheri brought up I thought were particularly convincing and persuasive. For example, she mentioned that there are already 230 reported cases of police killing blacks, according Mapping Police Violence. This fact is shocking, as honestly I was not aware of the magnitude of police brutality before reading the blog. Similarly to Cheri, Jordan stated alarming facts that really persuaded me to put importance on the issue of police brutality. Jordan mentioned in his blog that up to two fifths of African Americans feel unsafe around police. Personally, I find this statistic is absolutely unacceptable, as I feel that the United States should be a safe haven for people and a place where people shouldn’t be afraid of the people protecting them.
However, despite the severity of this issue I understand why it does not have much attention in the presidential campaigns and debates. Due to people’s strong feelings on the topic, if the candidates talked about police brutality a lot it might cause voters to stray away from the candidate. However, regardless I think that the candidates should discuss the issue despite the risk of losing voters. I completely agree with Jordan and Cheri, and think that it is an important issue and should be treated as one in the presidential campaigns and debates.
Looking through the responses, I saw many topics that need to be brought up in this election. Unfortunately, this race has become a slew of personal attacks that move further from the issues in this country. However, I had to chose one and I picked college tuition. Of course the seniors in our school are facing a grim reality with the price of schooling, and we can only see it going up from here on out. The idea of free college for everyone seemed like a nice little dream that exists only in Europe, but when Sanders brought it back up, and gave plans to do so, it seemed like it could be a reality, if still a little too good to be true. When Clinton got the nomination the hopes were dashed a little but not gone. She has made promises to try to get the price reduced to go to college, but since then she has said that not much else about the topic. As it becomes clear that the younger generation is going to be a big force in this election it would help the candidates to address this problem that plagues them. As an example, the college that I am most likely to attend costs about $51,000 per year including room and meal plan. I get good grades and have a pretty good ACT score and can get a automatic $20,000 scholarship. Some people would kill for that kind of money for their education and I am grateful that this school does this. However, that still leaves $31,000 per year and, since I plan on going into sciences, I will most likely need a masters degree. I will most certainly need some more money to get through and will probably have debt when I leave and mine will pale in comparison to the debt others will leave with. This is a very scary reality that young people are facing and it is a valid issue that needs to be brought up, but the only reason that I chose to bring up the environment in my other post was because of the time it will take to correct it. All government work takes a very long time and by no means would free college get sorted out quickly, but the environment will take generations to heal as it is not accounting for the fact that while we try to heal it we will still be producing harmful things. If we do not start soon it will only take longer or not be possible at all.
I read a post arguing that the issue of college tuition deserves more attention in the 2016 presidential campaign and debates. I agree with points that the author made, especially about how college tuition has inflated by 300% while the US dollar has increased by only 60%, making it much more difficult for students to pay off debt. The issue is certainly of significance, and warrants more recognition from the candidates. However, I still believe that the issue I wrote about in the last post, climate change, is of more importance. Climate change affects more than just the United States, it involves the entire world. College tuition is an issue very specific to this country and is not a severe threat. Climate change imposes the possibilities of erratic weather extremes, species extinction, and extremely increased water scarcity, and college tuition just does not create that level of risk.
With all the entries from my fellow students, I choose healthcare. Ian's points about the rise of prices and possibility of more money leaving the tax payers pockets as technology and life expectancy increase, convinced me that it was more important. I agree that the candidates need to pay more attention to the increase in cost of prescription drugs, and need to be asked more about them. Plus, the candidates need to be asked more about healthcare in general because of the cost of prescription drugs. Obamacare is a big topic that should be discussed, the candidates should talk about whether to improve or replace Obamacare during their presidency. The candidates should also just generally talk about what they plan to do for people who can't afford it, and just for everyone. I don't agree that healthcare is important but not as important as the environment. Healthcare can be fixed by a single decision but the environment will need decades to heal the damage done to it. The decision to start fixing the problem now is the best solution, and if the world waits any longer the environment will take longer or no possibility at all to heal the damage done.
Although the aging of the American population is an important issue, the environment is more important. As medicine improves, people will be healthier, and will work for more of their life, making this less of a pressing issue. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for climate change. People are continuing to use fossil fuels at a massive rate, in all countries. Climate change may not affect you directly right now, but it will affect everyone soon. The aging population of America will also be countered by the flow of young immigrants looking for jobs. Meanwhile, the environment is being all but ignored as an issue. Worst of all, the environment affects everyone. While the aging population of America will affect America a bit, the gradual destruction of the environment will affect everyone, everywhere, no matter if they've caused it or not. The campaigns have been paying attention to jobs, whether positively or negatively, so things that will directly affect the future job market have been discussed. Climate change has been hardly addressed, outright denied by one of the major candidates, and is practically an afterthought for the other. As important as the aging of the job force is, it still can't hold a candle to the importance of the environment.
One classmate has expressed their belief in a greater discussion of the qualification of the candidates. Although the qualification of candidates is an extremely important issue because everyone would rather have a more qualified president than a less qualified one, I still believe the cost of education is a greater issue. Since the two candidates are already chosen, it will not be very effective because we cannot change our candidates. There is the point that you may want to vote for the more qualified candidate, but what if the more qualified candidate has more policies you do not agree with? The cost of college education is more important because it is something that is a real issue among Americans, not something that does not really have as much of an effect on us.
I read a post that said that climate change and the environment deserve more focus in this election. While this is a very important issue, it makes sense that it’s been put on the back burner. There are more important topics, such as fixing the economy, and current event topics, like police race relations, that affect the here and now. The issue of preserving the environment has gotten over played in the eyes of the average American, because the two sides will say more or less what ever their party’s standard policy is. I personally believe that this issue is important, however not as much so as my topic of education reforms. No matter what we decide on for climate change, a permanent, reliable solution just isn’t possible right now. I belive we need to educate our country so that the engineers and scientists of tomorrow have the proper tools to solve this issue. On a more scientific note, I don't believe renewable energy is a solution. I believe the only real solution is to create process that removes carbon and other gasses from the air in a pseudo-photosynthesis process. Everything else is just slowing the waltz towards the inevitable. Education reforms that could provide a more readily available system would allow more people with lower incomes to help with this process. It would also keep people out of such extreme debt that they would only focus on what job pays more instead of the work it does. In short, I believe that climate control is important, just less so than reforming our education system.
After reading Maya’s post about the issue of the environment, I now believe that the environment is the top issue that deserves more attention and coverage. While both candidates have stated views on the topic, Clinton’s seemingly more sustainable than Trump’s, the issue needs more public coverage. Both candidates need to more publicly state their opinions on the matter: their plans, their goals, and how they plan to obtain those goals. Previously, I did not know the monetary cost that the environment would have on the economy, but the billions-of-dollars figure is astounding (although slightly outdated as the article is from 2012). I had also not previously thought about the importance of a plan of action for the future candidate. It does seem to be very true that while Obama talked up a big game in his campaigns regarding environment action, he seems not to have delivered on these promises and plans. I also completely support a fourth debate focused on science based issues as these issues are completely valid and deserve to be thoughtfully considered apart from the current debates. Overall, climate change is a matter of utmost importance to the future of the country and must receive more coverage.
For post 3 my classmate said that race relations between police and groups of minorities such as African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, etc was the most important issue that should be talked about in the presidential debate. I disagree with my classmate , because race relations are important, but the impact of global warming will be around for generations to come. However, race relations will(I believe)get better over time. As a result, global warming should be talked about in the debates, because if we as a a country don't address the problem of global warming now we never will. As a result, our children will have to deal with a polluted and unhealthy planet, because we didn't stop it while we had the chance.
One topic that others believe needs more attention in the presidential campaigns is the economy. I agree with Tanner’s statement that the economy is an important subject and deciding factor for many Americans and find the statistics about the middle class interesting; however, I don’t necessary agree with him since the economy has already been heavily discussed by both candidates. Each candidate has given numerous speeches to audiences all around the country relating to the economy previous to the first presidential debate. Additionally, the economy was one of the major topics discussed in the first presidential debate. At the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton clearly laid out her plan for the economy which included raising taxes of the wealth, investing in clean energy, and improving infrastructure. Similarly, Trump discussed his plans at the first debate, promoting renegotiation of trade deals with other countries and creation of stricter immigration policies to protect American jobs. I also disagree that fixing the economy is the key to solving issues splitting American society. I feel as other basic necessities need to be provided to the people before the government can propose legislation to improve the economy. With this being said, issues in areas like healthcare are more important. Without adequate healthcare services, many Americans are unable to contribute to improving the economy. Universal healthcare helps Americans receive the medical attention they need and improves the overall quality of life, thus allowing the American economy to run in the most efficient way.
I know it may be either exceedingly brave or exceedingly foolish to make the case that the issue of healthcare is more important than the environment and climate change. In fact, in doing so I will be arguing against the thoughts of more than 30% of the students in our two AP Government classes who stated that the environment/climate change is the issue that needs to be more thoroughly addressed - a clear plurality with no other issue coming close. With this knowledge, I must begin with a brief disclaimer on my opinion: climate change IS important. In fact, many of my classmates who discussed its importance made a clear case with strong evidence to support their claims. The future of our planet is in the balance, and our generation will have to deal with its effects; but with that said, it is easy to become fraught with anxiety when hearing the possible future implications climate change has on our planet when not putting them in proper context.
Climate change has happened before in history - in fact, for those of us who have taken AP World History, we would remember having discussed the “Little Ice Age” of the early 14th century to the late 19th century. Temperatures cooled by 1.1 degrees Fahrenheit when compared to the average temperature from 1000 C.E. to 2000 C.E. (1) However, humans were able to adapt - and that leads me to my first argument. Although this “Little Ice Age” did cause some negative effects - for example, instances of crop failures and famines in Europe - humans were able to adapt to these circumstances. The age of exploration was on hand, and through trade, civilizations compensated for losses incurred by the climate (2). It is in this same way that, although the statistics provided by my classmates show that the climate change happening now is more dramatic, we as humans are capable of adapting by investing resources into areas that are not adversely affected by climate change.
Furthermore, creating a correct timeline is important when talking about climate change in comparison to the issue of healthcare. For example, in Charlie’s post, he claimed that oil reserves will run out in the 2050’s. However, this is not inherently true. Calculating the world’s total oil reserves is a complex issue, and experts disagree as to how much oil we truly have left as new sources are still being identified. In fact, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates predicted that our planet will begin a decades-long plateau in oil consumption during the 2050’s, meaning that oil production will not falter until as much as a century from now. (3) Of course, it is still important to begin the shift towards renewable sources of energy, but the idea that this shift needs to begin right now because of a diminishing supply of oil is far-fetched. As for global warming, the impacts are being seen right now, yet devastating implications are still years ahead. For example, Colden stated that the “point of no return” (in which a 70% carbon emissions reduction will be needed to keep temperatures rising another 1.15 degrees celsius) could come as soon as 2036. However, in that very same article, research by a United Nations panel of scientists yielded the prediction that such a “tipping point” would come in the year 2050. Furthermore, this “tipping point” is in regards to the melting of polar ice caps - an important side effect of climate change, but one that does not cause drastic, apocalyptic consequences on human life. In regards to the timeline of this “tipping point, “ I realize that although these 14 years may not seem like a long time, they became way more significant when looking at the health care timeline.
(continued from post 1)
Yes, climate change and global warming are important and will have consequential effects on our planet. However, I would want each and every reader of this post to ask him or herself if their standard of living has currently dropped in a significant or measurable way because of climate change. I feel that we would be hard pressed to come up with a substantive, quality answer. It may be a selfish question to ask, but it is an important one when one asks the same question about the price gouging of some prescription drugs. The rising cost of life-saving drugs in this country has an immediate and adverse impact on the everyday lives of American families. For example, the price of Mylan’s EpiPen, a product that is prescribed to 3.6 million Americans, has increased in price by almost 400% in the past five years (from $164.98 in 2008 to $608.61 currently). (4-5) This massive price increase has forced families to make a massive shift in their monthly budgets (EpiPens expire) to try and pay for this life-saving medicine, and in doing so they are forced to make many sacrifices in other parts of their budget. (6) Clearly, it is important that our politicians (especially Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) address this extremely pressing issue, and craft policies that provide relief and aid to the millions of Americans impacted by the increase in the price of medicines that are essential to a healthy life.
I would also like to continue on the timeline issue. Based on the estimates provided by those who posted about climate change, momentous impacts will not come for another few decades. However, a health care crisis in this country is imminent. According to 2010 U.S. Census results, 26.4% (80 million) of Americans are within the range of 45-64 years of age. This percent may not seem frightening by itself. However, the current percent of Americans within the age range of 65 and older is only 13% (40 million Americans). (7) This is a massive difference in population and will have huge effects on our government’s ability to provide healthcare for seniors. As I stated in my first post, the current average life expectancy in America is 79 years - a 20 year increase from 1930. (8) Why such a massive increase? Advanced technology and scientific understanding make it easier for us to stay alive longer - and this is when the percents come into play. In theory, of the 26.4% of Americans that are of 45-64 years of age, one can assume that - because our average life expectancy is around 79 years - a huge percentage of the 26.4% will reach the age demographic of 65 and older. The implications of this are enormous. Because the federal government pays for the health care of low-income seniors (about 4.6 million seniors qualify for Medicare/Medicaid), it will have to find a way to raise TWICE the amount of revenue currently allocated towards Medicare and Medicaid programs to help (at least) 9.2 million seniors - and this estimate is based on an average and may not even come close to the true number of future seniors (currently in the 40-65 age range) who will need Medicare. (9) The end result is an increase in Medicare spending by hundreds of billions of dollars, and all of this will need to be funded by taxpayers like us. All of these increases will come in the next two decades when all those in the 40-65 age range in the 2010 census reach the 65 and older range. What year will this transformation be complete? 2035, which is one year before an estimated “tipping point” in global warming.
The unfortunate problem is that, when more money is used on healthcare, less money can be allocated towards combatting climate change. However, I believe that it is important to address the most pressing issues a society faces. The basics - shelter, food, water, and medicine - must be met first by society. Health care falls under this umbrella of “basics,” and it should be a priority of our government to address this need first and foremost.
With all of this being said, I would once again like to reiterate that I do not believe that climate change is an irrelevant issue; in fact, that is far from the truth. Much like my classmates, I care a great deal about the environment, and I am very concerned for the future of our generation. However, when looking over some of the posts made by members of this course on why climate change is more important, one in particular stood out. Lauren had speculated in her post that Trump and Clinton will never “have a firm stance on climate change… because it would possibly take away votes of the elderly… A fair percentage of the voting population will most likely die in 20-30 years, so why should they have to worry about (climate change)?” The sad truth is that this statement has a deeper meaning to it. Although the “elderly” do have an increased chance of dying because of that old age problem, they also have an increased chance of dying sooner if our government does not find a way to increase funding for Medicare programs that will keep them alive. It is our responsibility and the responsibility of Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton to make sure this is not the reality our future seniors will face.
(1) https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age
(2) https://www.eh-resources.org/little-ice-age/
(3) http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/run-out-of-oil.htm
(4) https://www.bustle.com/articles/180800-how-many-people-use-epipens-in-america-mylans-price-increase-is-taking-advantage-of-its-users
(5) http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/23/this-chart-shows-you-why-a-lot-of-people-are-angry-about-the-price-of-epipen.html
(6) https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/08/25/epipens-save-lives-if-they-cost-too-much-kids-will-die/?utm_term=.f11255aef329
(7) https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
(8) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html
(9) https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/eligibility/medicaid-enrollees/index.html
I think that the issues of the national debt are more important that environmental issues. I am not saying that the environment is not it important, it is, I just think the national debt is more important. I did research on the environment and saw both sides, Liberal and conservative, I saw that liberals wanted to pass a law on the amount of carbon dioxide released into the air. I don’t agree with this for two reasons. One, we breath out carbon dioxide what are they going to do limit the amount of air we breath out per minute? Two, trees take in carbon dioxide , if people think that carbon dioxide is a huge problem then just plant more trees. The debt is, I think the biggest issue facing America, because if it keeps going up are country could fall. I think a country that could potentially fall is a greater issue, because it is the future of our country, and we Americans want the best future for our coming generation. The environment is important, yes, but if our country falls there will be no money for anything. So my question is how do you think America will progress in the findings of ways to help the environment, or anything for that matter, if America is broke?
This comment has been removed by the author.
While I agree with Matthew that education is an important topic to focus on, there is much more at stake in the election regarding abortion. In the case of college, both candidates support the lowering of tuition. [1][2] However, in the case of reproductive rights, the candidate's intentions are vastly different. While Clinton supports Planned Parenthood, and wants to see it protected, [3] Donald Trump has vowed to defund it if it continues to perform abortions, limiting access just as surely as a change in the law. [4] He also plans to overturn Roe v. Wade by appointing pro-life justices. [5] This has disastrous implications that extend beyond abortion rights; as they are based on the interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, overturning the ruling would vastly alter the right to privacy that Roe v. Wade is based upon. [6][7] While Matthew argues that the affect education will have on our future workforce is of the utmost importance, I believe that the ramifications of Trump's plan are much more dire, as the reproductive rights of thousands of women are at stake. [8] No matter what happens to tuition when the candidates are elected, education will remain. But the right to privacy and reproductive health choices could be lost under Trump's presidency. This is why I believe that reproductive rights take precedent over the cost of tuition. While many issues between the two are in shades of grey, this one is in black and white; if one candidate is elected, we could lose women's reproductive health as we know it.
Sources:
1. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
2. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-universities-idUSKCN11S2UG
3.http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/hillary-clinton-video-ad-support-planned-parenthood-2016-120949
4. http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/02/politics/donald-trump-planned-parenthood-good-work/
5.http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-democratic-convention-2016-live-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-1469737388-htmlstory.html
6.http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/media/fact-sheets/government-federal-courts-scotus-roe.pdf
7.http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/roe-v-wade-fast-facts/
8.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6410a1.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
After reading Roland’s blog post, I am thoroughly convinced that the U.S. position in Afghanistan is of higher priority than Climate Change. Although there is no right answer to our dilemma, and a wide range of potential responses, neither candidate has offered a legitimate strategy, or conclusively touched on the issue at all.
One could argue that the viewing of Climate Change as slow moving and in the distant future has led to it to its currently catastrophic proportions. But however immediate the threat of climate change may be, Afghanistan is undeniably a much more unstable and swiftly changing issue. Roughly 30% of Afghanistan is under insurgent control, despite all our efforts, and the United States is unable to reclaim it. Although global warming is a pressing issue, it is certainly not changing in nature on a day-to-day basis, as the Afghanistan War is.
Also, you cannot put a price on american lives. To date, more than 2,000 americans have died unsung in a war the public has long forgotten. To continue the war is one thing, but to have neither candidate even acknowledge the U.S. soldiers who have died fighting the Taliban after discussing the war on ISIS in a debate is outright disrespectful. Although a candidate’s clear stance might not save lives, it would at least ensure that the lives of these Americans were not lost in vain. Of course, not all lives lost in Afghanistan are military ones. Recent airstrikes have struck Doctors Without Borders hospitals, killing 12 medical staff members. Not to mention the thousand of civilian deaths brought about by the clash of government and insurgent forces.
As always, the money is a large factor for a plan of action. Today, the U.S. keeps almost 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, despite years of discussion of total withdrawal. Every day spent in Afghanistan costs taxpayers $11,000- per soldier. If candidates were to offer a solid plan, this money would at least be put forth for a clearly forseeable objective. Instead, taxpayers spend over $100 million a day on a combat mission that has been over for two years. Although it is difficult to accurately measure the cost of a war, virtually all reports have placed U.S. spending into the trillions- money that could be diverted towards global warming research if the crisis were resolved, or at the very least addressed.
In conclusion, although I originally thought that Global Warming posed the greatest threat in relation to how much coverage it has received in the 2016 election, after reading Roland’s post, I was convinced that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are the more pressing issues. At this point, I would welcome at least a stated plan or stance from the two candidates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Kristin's post, I would agree that the refugee crisis is an important issue that should be talked about more in this campaign. Her data and facts persuaded me that this issue is equally important as the national debt. I do think that this issue should be talked about more and would have liked to see a question about it in the debates. The refugee crisis continues to worsen throughout the globe with at least 6.6 million Syrian citizens displaced (1). The U.S. needs to make policies to address the situation and the candidates should talk about this in their campaign, especially because many voters consider immigration a very important issue to them. However, the national debt is equally as important because it continues to grow everyday and eventually, somebody is going to have to pay for it. Neither candidate has adequately addressed their plan to reduce the national debt. Overall, I think both of these issues are very important and should be talked about more in the campaign.
(1) https://www.mercycorps.org/articles/iraq-jordan-lebanon-syria-turkey/quick-facts-what-you-need-know-about-syria-crisis
Many students suggested that global warming is not enough of a topic in this presidential campaign. I disagree. While the climate is important, its not a new problem that doesn't have a resolution. I can state right now that if a republican is elected to office, climate change regulation will not happen, and if a democrat is elected, regulation will happen. It's been said, it will be done, it's clear cut and obvious. I am more interested in hearing solutions to problems that the US cannot continue to function without. Plans for economic growth, solving the problem of the distribution of wealth, the cost of post secondary education in a world where a degree is increasingly important. If we cannot solve the issues to keep our people fed and working, there will be no nation left to fight for our climate. These issues are the one that need to be pressed, and these are the ones we need to know a plan for before we elect our next president.
After reading Lily's comment, I have also found myself to agree on this topic. I feel like this is a significant issue and should be brought to the attention of citizens that it is important to know what the candidates feel. This election focuses strongly on a few major issues such as immigration, etc. I also feel that most politically informed citizens are aware of both Clinton’s and Trump’s views on abortion, but not so much their actual plan to either support/reject the ideas. I agree with Lily, that it has been noted and those who research the two candidates can find where abortion fits on the democratic and republican agenda, but it has not been brought to attention in the debates. I agree that this topic is widely discussed, as it is controversial, and some moderate or independent voters may feel very strongly encouraged to vote for one candidate over another, because this issue affects many citizens emotionally. I am also curious about Trump’s shifting of views, and what the majority of his supporters want to believe versus what Trump actually believes.
I read multiple posts that said Climate Change should be an issue that should be focused on in the Presidential Election. It is clear that the presidential nominees have not spent a lot of time on climate issues, because the majority of people do not think it is the most important issue. The nominees are focusing on immediate issues like the economy or social rights issues. I agree that climate change should receive more attention than it is due to the fact that it will effect everyone around the world, and the US should try ways to eliminate its impact on the climate change to help improve lives for everyone around the world. Originally I said that the aging population had not received enough attention, but I have been persuaded to believe that climate change is a more important of an issue that should receive more attention. The person who’s blog post I read gave facts that the environment is changing and what negative effects it’s having and will continue to have on people and nature. I think it is important for the voters to take into account what the nominees think about global warming and climate change, because it will directly and indirectly affect their lives. I think that voting for a candidate that does not realize what an effect climate change will have on people is not a good idea. The more years that pass without a change or an effort to reverse what is happening will continue to make the problem worse, and nothing will improve. For example Trump does not want to believe, or want the public to believe that there is a problem, even when there is clear scientific research and evidence. Clinton on the other hand knows that climate change is a problem, but she has not spent a lot of time discussing it. Through reading the blog post, and the sources along with it I now believe that climate change should be an issue that the nominees should spend more time debating, and voters should consider when making their decision.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I believe that the national debt should be something that is discussed more by the candidates. I now think it may even warrant more attention than the environment. The national debt is growing constantly and has reached a staggering $19 trillion (1). It is growing without check and has tripled since the year 2000 (2). The candidates have barely addressed the problem and the lack of a solution will only contribute to the debt increasing. Both candidates have heavily addressed issues of the economy, but the solutions to decreasing the national debt are nearly nonexistent. Clinton plans to invest billions into the infrastructure to strengthen the economy, and Trump would like to raise the debt ceiling (3). Trump’s proposal will only worsen the problem at hand, while Clinton’s protects some aspect of our economy. However, neither are answers. Federal spending needs to decrease, but there are many necessary causes being funded and in need of funding. Stein has proposed the most logical and clear solution. She openly supports reducing the deficit and wants to cut military spending (3). Defense spending in the US is higher than the rest of the world, and spends almost as much as the next 14 countries’ budgets combined (4).
Part of what makes the national debts such an important matter is this necessity to cut something that is federally funded. Whatever that is will affect the US greatly as a whole. Many are against the reduction of funding of the military, so this can only leave money to be cut from another cause, perhaps education or Social Security or environmental protection/research. These were issues that were also listed as majorly important to other classmates. What happens with the national debt can influence many other aspects of government issues. Of course, there is the option of a major increase in taxes which would not go over well with people. Still, there is one other option and that is to continue to ignore the debt. By leaving it unchecked, it’ll continue to grow leaving the system to eventually collapse.None of these are particularly great options, but they’re the ones we face.
(1) http://www.usdebtclock.org/
(2) http://www.forbes.com/sites/andykoenig/2016/10/12/no-ones-talking-about-the-most-important-issue-americas-national-debt/#445ca4ed4e04
(3) https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_budgets
(4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/09/this-remarkable-chart-shows-how-u-s-defense-spending-dwarfs-the-rest-of-the-world/
Maya stated that an issue that needed to be expressed more in this year's debates and campaigns was energy and environmental policy. I agree with this belief for two reasons. Firstly, I believe the acceptance or denial of global warming reflects the personality of the candidate who holds said belief. It seems to me that those candidates who accept global warming as a fact and want to expand clean energy usage are worried about the future and the planet we live on, not just the money it may cost at first to implement plans to combat these issues. Secondly, we are the future that today's use of energy and battle against climate change will affect. If we maintain the not very eco-friendly practices we currently are in favor of, we and generations after will suffer the consequences. Overall, I believe we elect presidents and other political officials because we believe they will make the world a better place, and I firmly believe there are few clearer ways to do so besides making it our world a greener place.
After reading many posts regarding the issues of climate change and clean energy, I decided that the topic of energy is more important than the discussion of women’s rights in this upcoming election. Anussa brought up the point that 64% of US citizens are very worried about global warming and that 73% of the sample taken supported alternative forms of energy over the traditional oil and gas options. Anussa also brings up how this issue is in the minds of many voters, but it hasn’t been discussed widely by major presidential candidates. While each candidate does have a confirmed stance on the issue, it is important that the voters demand more clarification on how each candidate will reach their goals involving energy production for the general public. I was persuaded to change opinions due to the effects that Trump’s and Clinton’s policies would have on the future. Clinton plans to install half of a billion solar panels, reduce energy waste, and to reduce oil usage. Trump plans on tapping into untouched oil to benefit the US economy, rather than the future of the world’s climate. These two environmental plans will have drastically different effects on the world’s climate and it is important that the US voter knows exactly what future they’re voting for when they choose who they want to be in office.
After reading through various posts concerning important, but ignored issues for the upcoming election, I have to come to agree with Bree that the national debt is a very pressing issue for the government. I believe that it is more important that the issue of climate change, because it along with social security keep the economy running and will come to affect the everyday lives of Americans. Trump and Clinton’s campaigns explain how the federal government is going to use copious amounts of money to aid the public welfare and economy while not addressing the quickly growing debt. It is clear that neither of the candidates have spent a lot of time discussing the issue. They are focusing more so on immediate issues without looking into the future and seeing the trouble that looms in the future due to national debt. . While it might not appear to be a critical issue on the outside, the debt in the United States is currently at an all-time high of $19 trillion or approximately $61,000 per citizen and could lead to economic federal government disaster. Although the candidates feel that the debt is something that they are stuck with, actions can be made to attempt decreasing the debt. A plan should be made by the candidates that addresses this important issue that our country faces today.
In response to Jared's post, I still do not remain convinced that racial justice is as paramount an issue as is that of social services and security. While I do believe in racial equality, the reality is that many of the issues with racial justice, especially in the cases of police shooting in the examples that Jared cited reside on mostly on the local or state level of government instead of the federal government. Police power was granted to the states and the only really substantial influence the federal government has over state and local police is through grants and funding. Social services and security rests more in the hands of the federal government than racial justice as it more directly affects the federal economy and workforce. America's population is getting increasingly older, thus increasing the pressure to reform the social services and security programs here in the United States. Given the difference in federal government power in these two issues, I do not believe that racial justice should be spoken about more prominently in the presidential election than social services and security as it simply isn't an issue that the federal government, or president, has as much power to control. Additionally, while race relations in the United States are certainly tense, racial justice requires both a change in societal thought and new legislature instead of simply legislature for social services and security. As many decisions regarding racial equality have been relatively recent in history, it understandably takes time for some people to change their mindset and is something that is difficult to force onto people. I believe that if racial tensions continue to grow as they are, eventually racial justice will be something that plays a larger role in elections, however with America's population at the age that it is, and America's economy in the position that it currently is in, social service and security reform is an issue that will affect the lives of millions of Americans if it remains in the current state that it is at.
In response to a post I read, I do agree with my classmate that sexual education needs more attention in the the presidential debate, though I do not feel as if it should pull more attention than environmental issues. Their sources were accurate in mentioning that fewer than half of the schools in the American school system require sex ed classes and that it leads to overwhelming rates of births and STDs among teens. This topic does indeed affect a huge proportion of the population, but does not come close to climate change's impact on every living being on this planet. As media outlets and other sources continue to grow and expand with the help of advancing technology, adolescents are more prone to obtaining sexual education information from television, internet, or numerous other ads they may encounter on a day-to-day basis. I do agree that schools still should require such courses, but with basic information that is accessible through media, it is, in most cases, a choice that person can make whether or not to practice safe sex. On the other hand, it is crucial that the presidential candidates show dedication towards bettering the environment for the sake of the world. A simple ad is most likely not going to make a person stop eating meat to contribute to saving that animal agriculture industry or begin riding their bike to work to cut CO2 emissions, but a presidential leader who is serious on the topic and who is constantly pressing it into their agenda is more likely to influence a larger amount of people to pay attention to their impact on the environment.
In response to Jocelyn's post, I believe that reducing the national debt is not an area that deserves more attention during the presidential debates. It is true that the national debt seems alarmingly high, at $19 trillion, but in reality, the national debt is merely just a number. It represents the amount of dollars that the government has yet to be redeemed in taxes from the public, and the fact that it hasn't been fulfilled is not a problem. The national debt is not something that the US owes to other countries, but more of an amount that the US owns and spends. When the government spends money, they are adding to the debt and use taxation money to make up for the debt. Additionally, the increasing national debt is just the government's act of spending money, which contributes to things like more public goods which in the long run helps everybody in the US (1). Although it may be true that the national debt may pose a problem in the future, right now, the national debt is not a number of concern because the US economy is in a stable position. There are more central and concerning issues that should be discussed instead of the national debt. This is fairly subjective, but in my eyes, social issues and equal rights are much more critical issues that deserve more time during the debates during this election.
(1) http://realmoney.thestreet.com/articles/03/22/2016/national-debt-doesnt-need-fixing
I agree with the general consensus of the posts in saying that environmental issues should be discussed more in the final debate and in the presidential campaigns. In particular, I agree that the Dakota Access Pipeline is an extremely important issue, not only because of its environmental implications, but because of the racial implications. The Dakota Access Pipeline is an example of the continued mistreatment of Native Americans in the United States. It also poses major environmental concerns. Because the Dakota Access Pipeline intersects both racial and environmental issues, I do think it's more of a major issue than mine. While my issue of comprehensive sexual education is important, the Dakota Access Pipeline is broader and more applicable to the average person, as most people are more interested in the environment than sexual education. I also thought the sources used were accurate and persuasive.
Though I strongly feel that education is an important issue, the case of the Dakota Access Pipeline is not to be ignored. Unfortunately though this has been the case throughout this election. Neither Trump nor Clinton has openly made a statement about the it. The Dakota Access Pipeline is tied directly to the environment, what happens to the Pipeline will either have a positive or negative effect on the government. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has protested the Pipeline because its path, they say, would pillage sacred land. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe also voiced concerns that if the Pipeline erupted it would contaminate their drinking water. The Dakota Access Pipeline covers the issues of environment, the dominating power of big business, and minority rights/representation. I feel that by issuing an official statement if would benefit the candidates because it would show their supporters that they are listening to the issues that concern them. It would also benefit the issue of the Pipeline itself, peaceful protesters are being treated with unnecessarily violent tactics and more awareness needs to be made on the Dakota Access Pipeline.
I agree with other posts saying that the environment needs more attention in further presidential topics. However, I think the the economy is a much more important issue. This is because as a countries economy grows, the technology and readiness of citizens to accept more environmentally conservative practices will grow as well. If the economy is very poor, the country will not be able to focus any of its attention on environmental issues. Also, environmental issues often involve a lot of funding and development of new technology. In a thriving economy this funding will be more readily available and there will be plenty of new innovations by business entering, leaving, and fighting for their share in a given market. I do feel that the environment warrants more attention than it is currently getting because it is a major threat to our nation and our world. Yet, a precursor to the development of environmental policies is having a strong economy.
After reading Jocelyn’s response to the question of what topic deserves more attention in the campaign and in the debates, I agree with her points about the topic of the national debt, but I still believe that the discussion about the environment is more important. First, I agree with many of the points she makes about the debt and the problems with the candidates solutions to these issues. Checking her sources I found that her facts are accurate and in regards to the amount of debt we currently have and the amount of debt each of the candidate’s solutions would produce. I also can agree that neither candidate has specified how they plan to produce more jobs and help the economy, even though they have said many times that this is their plan. Although I agree with many of the points that Jocelyn makes in her response, the topic of debt seems to have more attention than the topic of environment in the debates and campaigns. I feel these issues are sort of similar in that both candidates sort of have vague plans, but the topic of debt seems to have come up more than environment. Another reason that I believe environment is still an underrated topic in the campaign is that this is an issue that will impact all other aspects of our lives. Even though our economy is important both now and in future generations, you can’t have an economy or jobs if the earth is destroyed.
I agree with other people in that the environment is an issue that needs to be covered more on the Presidential debates. While topics like immigration and foreign affairs are important, they only have major impacts on the direct future. Not only will protecting the environment have an immediate effect, but it was also determine how the earth will look in the next 50 years, and even what is powering the earth in the future, just like my chosen topic, education.In both these issues, the future of our nation is the most regarded reason to make change, which I believe is an important issue to bring up. Like education, as Nathan Noma points out, the environment might not be the most important issue according to average not-well-informed Americans because the data doesn't mean much directly to them, but both he and I believe that it is important to protect the environment now in order that our future is brighter as a result. Both with the environment and education, the future is mightily affected by the topics and deserve to be discussed equally as much.
One issue that many of my classmates seem to be particularly interested in is the environment. While I would say that the environment is important, perhaps more so overall than college tuition being affordable, I disagree with some of the points that these people have cited for addressing climate change. Specifically the matter of global warming or rather global climate change being a driving issue. I have noted that while global temperatures have been increasing on average, this is due more to a cyclical shift in the climate which has occurred at several times in Earth's history including the Triassic period. Basically, the Earth's climate will cycle between ice ages and warm eras over time. As such, the matter of global warming which is noted by scientists and in popular media isn't necessarily due to humans putting more CO2 into the atmosphere or otherwise. What this means then is that it isn't so important to address the environment as people seem to want to make it. However, what should be addressed for the environment is conservation of habitats and invasive species. These are issue that are much more directly concerning to the environment than global warming because while global warming has very likely little to do with the intervention of men than it does to natural climate adjustments. Conversely, the accidental and intentional introduction of species that are detrimental to the ecosystem of an area do have everything to do with humans because these introductions occurred SPECIFICALLY because a human did so. Similarly most cases of habitats being destroyed are due either to invasive species introduced by humans or simply by human encroachment. So rather than the environment and climate change being the issue its the maintenance of the ecosystem that should be important.
One of the posts I read focused on the issue of women's health. I would say that this is a more important issue for the 2016 campaign than the one that i focused on, which was the Black Lives Matter movement. I say that mainly because I feel that the issues that women deal with are more widespread across American society, whereas the primary problem that blacks face is racial profiling from the Police, which is consolidated strictly within one single government institution, whereas women are underprivileged in a number of institutions, from the educational system to the police, who oftentimes ignore their complaints or reports of criminal actions take against them. The post also talked about how many businesses and institutions that provide care and support for women also benefit society as a whole. For example, it mentioned how Planned Parenthood clinics provide ever controversial abortions (where legal) but they also provide other health services, such as physical exams, flu vaccines, and screenings for potential health risks. Increasing support for issues relating to women's health would not only benefit women, but many other people as well, since overall healthcare would likely improve as well, whereas an increase in racial equality between blacks and whites would almost exclusively affect those two groups, with severely limited effects outside of their communities.
The issue that some of my classmates thought was important and should be talked about more in the debates is healthcare. I originally thought that environment was an important issue that should be further discussed. I thought this because it is a major issue that will affect everybody in the world. I did not choose healthcare because specifically Obamacare has been talked about in the debates more than climate change. However, after reading some of my classmates' views, I realize that healthcare is very important now. Obamacare is too expensive and needs change. After Obama leaves office, healthcare will most likely need a lot of fixing. I agree that healthcare is very important because it is going to be a hot topic in the next couple of months. The environment is going to take a lot of cooperation between a variety of countries in order to make a dent in decreasing emissions. The healthcare is going to need to be talked about because there are a lot of problems with it. In addition, healthcare needs to be discussed among the Democrats and Republicans because if they do not get to a compromise, nothing will ever get passed and the issues of healthcare will never be resolved. The healthcare issue is going to be a major problem because of the high cost and the enormous budget deficit. Where as, global warming is more of a long-term effect.
While reading Laura Rosenberg’s post, I realized that the environment and climate change may be a bigger problem than minority rights, specifically LGBTQ+. While equal rights are a really big issue, they only affect a smallish percent of the population. Climate change however, affects not only the US and our future, but the future of the entire world. Laura brought up a really good point with the fact that a lot of the people that are voting will not be around to see the long term effects of climate change. She argued that the candidates are not focusing on global warming because a large percent of the voting population doesn’t really care. Sure, their children will have to deal with the effects, but it is hard to focus on something that will never affect you as an individual. We also need to focus on climate change so we can educate our young people about what they can do and what they will be left with if they don’t do that. If we teach children this from a young age, they are more likely to be responsive to the nation’s demands. Children can be taught to respect everyone and be welcoming of minorities from their parents, but public education is more important with the science of global warming. The candidates also need to talk about how they will encourage and reward businesses that are pursuing green energy. If they don’t talk about it, companies will have no reason to pursue things that will help save our world. In conclusion, Laura convinced me that the candidates should be spending more time on the environment and climate change than minority rights because it affects more people, it is important for our future and we need to educate our children.
Ingrid made some good points about the issue of Social Security needing to come up more in the election, however, I don't believe it is more important than what to do with Iraq. The issue of Social Security is an important issue, and her analysis was valid on the issue. There is a real risk of Social Security running out based on her sources without candidate action (1).However, the issue is not as important as what to do with Iraq. This is the issue candidates need to focus on first in my opinion. We lost many lives, and trillions of dollars fighting that war. We worked so hard to get a friendly government into power, and now, the issue is not being addressed in the campaigns. The Taliban is actually regaining ground in Iraq, and this is scary based on all we lost taking land from them. We cannot let Iraq fall back into the Taliban's hands after all we fought for. This would be a complete waste of resources and peoples lives, and would also reflect badly on the G.W. Bush presidency, and Obama presidencies that worked hard concurring issues in and for Iraq. Social Security also needs more attention, and Ingrid made valid points. Based on her sources, the public relies and wants these benefits to be around for a long time (2). If attention is not brought to it, this may not be the case in the future. Even with this said however, the Iraq issue needs the most attention first, as if we secure the country once and for all, we will not have wasted time, lives and resources, and will not have to worry about it in the future, leaving more funding for other important issues such as Social Security.
(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
In response to Katie Orcutt’s post, I agree that the aging population’s effect on the economy is an important issue for the candidates to discuss. However, I do not believe it is more important than the issue I brought up, which is the Dakota Access Pipeline and its implications in the environment and race relations. Katie does use credible sources in her argument, but I feel like the economy has gotten quite a spotlight in this election cycle, especially do to Trump’s claims that his economic prowess makes him the obvious choice for President. Although this aging population issue is going to affect the presidency, it is one issue. The Dakota Access Pipeline controversy is a wider issue that extends to questions of the candidate’s stance on the environment and equal treatment and respect of Native Americans, which is why I feel it is still the most important issue that is currently being ignored by the candidates in this campaign cycle.
A few people wrote about the underrepresented refugee crisis, and I strongly agree. The majority of the media dedicated to the refugee crisis is to victimize Americans and to make the refugees look threatening and violent. I am a strong believer this is not the case. The refugee crisis should appeal to people more than it is right now. Even photos of bloody children and bodies lining the streets of Syria no longer stir people to action. The crisis has been going on since 2011, and it no longer phases the majority of American people. If I saw Clinton outwardly speaking about the crisis and dedicating herself to their aid, I would be way more inclined to root for her instead of looking at her like she is the lesser of two evils.
Many classmates brought up that police brutality should be discussed more in this election. I believe that this is an extremely important issue that should be talked about, however I feel that at this point in the Presidential campaign it is pretty clear how the candidates feel about race relations involving police and minorities and I think we can get a pretty good idea as to what steps they would take in solving this issue. I still stand to my belief that sexual assaults on college campuses has not been given enough attention in this election. I believe that yes both of these issues are extremely important but the nation has seen how these candidates would handle police brutality and the candidates have been less transparent with how they would address the alarming amount of sexual assaults on college campuses.
In response to a few of my classmate's post claiming that LGBTQ+ rights are the most important issue (or deserve more attention), I must disagree. While I do believe that both candidates should solidify their opinions on the subject, I don't believe it is any kind of priority in this election, though it is an important issue. Unfortunately this and several similar issues in this election must be overshadowed by economic issues and foreign policy issues which are more important directly to a far greater percentage of the population than the 3.5% who deem themselves LGBT. I do however agree that it is an important issue, but it is one for later in a presidential career,j it should not be a major point for their campaign for president.
Well when its all said and done my issue doesn't have much to do with the election campaign, but Americans welfare in general. I agree with many of my classmates that environmental issues seem to have been sidelined and I also believe that they should be discussed more. I can't argue that mine is more important in the election because I don't think that it has much or any influence on the election. Other than conservatives wanting no sex ed and liberals wanting a comprehensive sex ed approach my issue is on the back burner probably because it is so controversial but also because people are super aware that its an issue. Honestly I was kind of reaching pretty far on the last response as I am now but I do believe that issue needs some revision but it wouldn't make a huge deal in the election as other issues would. That being said I think environmental issues are under discussed and need more face time.
The post I am reviewing was posted by Jocelyn James. She talked about how no one really talked about the national debt. She talked about how no one really discussed this issue and have said that we need to do something about it. I think that this is a very important that we should discuss the debt and she is very influential in her post but I think that my topics of how we are going to work together in some of the issues we will be able to eliminate the national debt. I think that she has a very legitimate argument and all of her sources are very persuasive of what is wrong with the debt and they give many solutions for how we are going to have to solve it. They talk about reforming the tax code and budget and other various laws. These are all great ideas for how to fix this problem but everything has to be passed through the house which I don’t think will happen. When someone steps into the presidential office they will be put with this burden in figuring out how to fix the debt. When they come up with ideas they will propose it to congress and the senate, but because they are hated by the other party all of their ideas of reform will be crushed by the opposing party. This is a huge issue that is the root of the reason why we can’t fix anything.
One issue a classmate brought up that has not been talked about in the debates much is climate change. I agree that climate change is a very important issue and the candidates should spend more time addressing it. Currently the world pumps around 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year of which the US produces 5 billion tons [1]. Carbon dioxide has caused the temperature of the Earth to rise .8 C [2]. Increases in temperature like this cause glacial ice to melt [3]. This will cause the sea level to rise 6.6 feet by 2100 if carbon emissions remain unchanged [4]. An increase in sea level like this would put many coastal cities under water. Another effect of climate change is ocean acidification which will hurt sea life [5]. With all the negative effects of climate change it is an issue that should be talked about in the debates.
1. http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=CO2ts1990-2014&sort=des9
2. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
3. http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
4. http://climate.org/sea-level-rise-risk-and-resilience-in-coastal-cities/
5. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php
In response to Sophie's post on comprehensive sexual education, I feel that it is a very important issue. It affects the health of many Americans and in my opinion is an issue that needs to be addressed more often by candidates as well as the government. However, I hold my belief that mass incarceration is more important because of how deeply it is intertwined with other important issues in the US. While comprehensive sex ed is important, it is a relatively simple issue mostly only involving public health. Mass incarceration affects the economy (a big issue to many Americans) as well as civil rights with regards to race, which are to me one of the single most important things that needs to be addressed. Respectfully, I think comprehensive sexual education is of lesser importance than mass incarceration.
I saw a few posts about how the qualification of a candidate should be a bigger issue for the presidency. I do not believe it is bigger than many topics including mine at all. I believe that qualification is not an issue because we have the freedom to have a voice in government. If the person can get votes then they should be able to run. The qualifications should not be at test because there are no certain requirements for the president and if the people want something different for president then the candidates qualifications should not matter. Freedom is a thing. My topic is a much bigger topic that affects a lot of people.
I would like to respond to multiple posts addressing health, specifically targeting women. While I believe that this is an important issue I don't believe that it's something that the president should be most concerned with. I believe that the supreme court should deal with matters of domestic abuse and abortion, whereas the president should be worried about foreign affairs and the economy, seeing as the national deficit is increasing to an extreme amount.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home