During the Republican Debate, I found the moral foundation that the candidates were most resonating with was authority. Defining who was a better leader than the other in respect to each candidate was a key aspect in the section of the Debate that I watched. Though the candidates were not only arguing that they were better than one another but they were also arguing that they would be a better authority figure than our current and previous presidents. With authority being the aspect of the debate, I noticed that none of the candidates spoke to anything positive to each other or our current and previous presidents. I only saw that there primary intention was to show that they were the best and will do better than anyone else.
I think that Bernie Sanders won the Democratic Primary Debate. The two strongest candidates in the debate were Clinton and Sanders, and Sanders defeated Clinton by far. Throughout the debate, Sanders kept going back to the idea that climate change is the nations biggest threat at the moment, which I wholeheartedly agree with since the climate is an uncontrollable force that is becoming quite a problem for the environment. One of Sanders' strongest quotes was, in response to how he would pay for his new tax proposals, "Well, let me tell you, Donald Trump and his billionaire friends under my policies are going to pay a hell of a lot more in taxes today — taxes in the future than they're paying today." In this quote Sanders is reinforcing points and plans he made throughout the debate in regards to tax proposals that will affect income inequality. Sanders' ratings in the polls have been growing significantly leading up to the election. According to the Huffington Post, Sanders was showing .9% support in June of 2014 and 24.4% support in October of 2015, within the democratic party.
The main source in which I get my information from is the internet. Whenever I am curious about a new topic or am trying to research something, the internet is almost involuntarily where I gravitate to. The internet itself does not have its own underlying perspective or bias of any specific topic, it all depends on the perspective of the author whatever topic you are inquiring about. The internet is only a carrying device that gets the information from the author's minds and into our minds. Though on the internet there is a source with a different perspective for almost every topic out there. And it is from those different perspectives is where the Big Sort comes in. We all have an underlying perspective of a certain topic, and we will turn to the internet for more information about that topic. Once we find a source that matches our perspective we will continue to refer back to the source for more topics; and we will then stick to those perspectives we agreed with the perspective of a topic from the same source. This is how we can then relate to other people with similar perspectives and is how we are sorted into social groups.
After reading the article, “The Tyranny of the Nanny State,” I am much less inclined to believe that government regulation is necessary. Mostly on grounds that the government’s regulations are primarily driven by fear and that they do not see any positive repercussion that could come out of a situation in which child endangerment is involved. The article gave a plethora of examples pertaining to the overcautious acts of the government. One example that stood out was a situation where one mother was arrested for letting her kids ride their scooters alone in the cul-de-sac outside her home. This greatly surprised me because I see this going on all the time, it something I have done myself without a second thought from anyone else who witnessed it. This is a great example of the different levels of enforcement across different states. In this case and many other examples very similar to this I feel that the federal government has very far overreached. Government regulation, in this case, is not at all useful or helpful. Arresting parents based on fear that they might be endangering their kids is causing much more harm than good.
Before I read the article, I had not given much thought into why women don't run for political positions or the challenges in doing do so. So the most interesting thing I found through reading the article was how much the household dynamic can create the illusion of why women infrequently run for political positions. Though I found this counter argument far more interesting that when a woman runs for a position they are just as likely to get elected as men, it only has to do with how strong they are on their standpoint of why they should be elected and what they will bring that will be beneficial to their position. It explains why the household dynamic is not the underlying reason why not a lot of women run. What I am wondering about, though, is why are women asked far more questions family issues than men? Is it because of the perception of the stereotype that women are in charge of maintaining a household? An alternative to this could be since that fewer women run for positions they are asked different questions for the reason that they might be considered a minority due to their overall smaller numbers.I definitely agree that women who run have just as much of a chance of being elected as men, I feel more women should be running to prove that!
I was only able to find the "1% in poll candidates" debate and of the debate that I watched, I thought that Bobby Jindal was the strongest candidate (this has nothing to do with the fact that I did a background check on him in my previous blog post.) I thought that he presented himself extremely well and had quite a strong case for each question that was thrown at him. Of the four candidates Jindal was the most diverse on topics he chose to address for each question. All the other candidates tended to stick to only one topic no matter what question they had. I feel that this debate was more of a political theater rather than an honest debate. Each of the candidates were only saying what the audience wanted to hear and for the most part only stuck to one topic. For example, Graham, for every question, would respond with wanting to deploy more troops to the Middle East and that every decision Obama has made in office is wrong and that he is going to "fix" every mistake Obama supposably made. The candidates intentions were not to spread their honest opinions during the debate but to impress the audience in order to raise their standings in the polls.
I think that climate change is one of the most important issues facing our country today. This issue is the most important because if the U.S. continues overwhelmingly release pollutants into the air and overuse resources then we are going to destroy our Earth while at the same time putting too much energy into smaller, less important issues. Therefore sustaining the world we thrive in is priority number one.
Candidate participating in the 9/16/15 Republican Debate: Bobby Jindal. he is a Republican candidate running for the 2016 presidency position. A few of his standpoints include: he is in opposition of same-sex-marriage, opposition of abortion (except in cases of rape), in support of "the right to bear arms, and wants to lower taxes in order to raise income. One of his strongest standpoints is his view on taxes; decreasing taxes with intentions to increase income is in very much support of the working population who are constantly earning money while at the same time supporting the economy. One of his weaker standpoints is his view on gay marriage rights. Since gay marriage has already been legalized with tremendous support from the general population will make it very difficult for Jindal to eradicate that law. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
November 2015
Categories |