Government & Politics
3 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World

BY 11/21 -- America's Free Speech is Perplexing to the Rest of the World | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This illustrates one of the good things about the American system. Since people are free to express themselves it actually helps to relieve domestic stress and promote domestic stability because everyone knows that their desires and thoughts will be catered to by someone else. Everyone else can find a friend.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:52 PM

Although many nations around the world are democracies, the U.S is unique because it gives its people more personal freedom. The U.S. isn't conscerned with other people getting offended, as long as each person has the right to expression it is okay. The only ban that we have on this is clear and present danger. There are certain guidlines that have developed in order to rule an action potentially dangerous or not. Other countries are astounded by this practice.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:38 PM

No protections for those that shrieks obscenities and the clause to discern speeches that invokes clear and present danger are there. This just lacks bold enforcement. Governments are scared of crazy Americans' revolts and teachers fear students. Of course the rest of the world looks down on us. We lack culture, sophistication and moderation.

 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:32 PM

This article talks about how France prohibited people from talking about prophet mohammad and how although they are a democratic country free speech is not as open as it is in the US over there are stricter rules. I think one of the great things about America is the freedom to make your own choices and speak up and how you are aloud to say what you want. People who have problems with the government are aloud to voice there opinions here it would be against the 1st amendment to limit free speech. Obviously there are offensive things people should not say but we are aloud to voice our opinions when and how we want. 

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/24 -- Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress - Burgess Everett

BY 10/24 -- Rand Paul pushes constitutional amendment on Congress - Burgess Everett | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Forget the Vitter amendment. Rand Paul wants to make sure that Congress can’t ever again write laws with provisions specific to lawmakers.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

What Senator Rand Paul is attempting to do is very laudable, and he will certaintly gain popular support for his effort and boldness. However, an amendment to the Consitution is a major undertaking and it most likely won't go through Congress and the POTUS due to the current divided government. The media has the attention span of an ADHD squirrel on LSD. They will most likely forget soon and he will be left in the lurch.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 6:00 AM

In this article, Rand Paul is pitching the idea to add an amendment that prohibits Congress from passing laws that Congress is exempt from and having to dealin with lawmakers. Its clearly aimed at Obamacare for the reasons that when it is in action, exchanges must be made by the congressmen and rulings from the O.P.M. in order to receive federal contributions. It is unlikely that Congress will go for more restrictions.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:53 PM

A kentucky senator, Rand Paul, wants an amendment forbidding senators and representatives to pass laws that don't apply equally to Congress and the citizens. Specifically aimed at Obamacare, this amendment will force lawmakers to disclose exchanges and rulings from the Office of Personnel Management in order to receive federal employer contributions. Amending the Constitution requires a majority vote in both chambers before it can be ratified, and I think Paul has a difficult task ahead of him to convince lawmakers to give up their authority to make laws.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 20, 2014 11:54 PM

This article tells us that Rand Paul wants an amendment forbidding senators and representatives to pass laws that don't apply equally to Congress and the citizens. Paul specifically aims this at Obamacare, his proposed amendment will force lawmakers to disclose exchanges and rulings from the Office of Personnel Management in order to receive federal employer contributions. It seems Paul has a difficult task ahead of him to convince lawmakers to give up their authority to make laws because amending the Constitution requires a majority vote in both chambers before it can be ratified.

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- 1-800-ObamaCare-Denial: Website problems don't matter when your intentions are good. | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:
This article outlines and explains the problems with the Affordable Healthcare Act (ObamaCare). It is a little biased as the article's intent is to expose and ridicule ObamaCare. Nevertheless, the author makes a very good case. The cooperation of the health insurance companies means that the government was aware of what the repercussions of that decision would be . Thus it is logical to assume a slightly darker motive might be present in addition to the general stupidity of Washington as usual.
more...
Rabika Rehman's curator insight, October 24, 2013 10:37 PM

Obama thinks that the afordable care act is more than just a website.This reform is upsetting insurance company,they are already making changes with their individual policies because they are non-complaint with the obama care. The fact that it's more than a website should scare people.

Maddy Folkerts's curator insight, October 25, 2013 9:21 PM

I don't agree with this article that the website problems means all of ObamaCare will be a failure. It's more of a technical issue than an issue with the whole plan of the policy. This article was extremely biased and touched on irrelevant problems rather than arguing the actual important, debatable topics.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:47 PM

Obama encourages people to apply for benefits over phone. The article itself is very discriminating and has a very derogetory tone. ObamaCare's real goal is to focus over health care. The disadvantage of ObamaCare is that the enrolled people will mainly be the most expensive patients. Even in the video, obama says that the website is slow and there are problems, but the intentions are good. Some people are going to be paying higher prices than they usually do.

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- It’s Not Just Political Districts. Our News Is Gerrymandered, Too.

The government shutdown reflects a political system that reinforces extremism. The news media system isn’t much different lately.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

I really like this article. It is extremely unbiased, reveals the slanting and opinionation of the news, and shows how people all desire confirmation bias. The normal tendency of people is to acknowlege information that backs up what they already belive. Basiclly, this article describes why I generally don't keep up with or care about sports, politics, or celebrity gossip. It is all minutiae that doesn't interest me and will be out of date in a month or so.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:54 PM

Gerrymandering is the inherently unfair and immoral practice of politicians of reshaping political district so as to give a particular political party the upper hand. According to this article, news media is engaged in the same unfair practices. News is altered and changed to fir the interests of a certain political leaning. Media outlets choose what images and stories to share with the public so as to shape public opinion to fit its own cause. This is an age-old practice, with most people believing that media outlets are generally liberally slanted. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:03 PM

The article states how the media is bias much like a gerrymandered district. The media outlets portray different idoelogies and thus, they provide totally different point of views. Having these different media outlets gives  people different sides of different stories and to an extent, it is good to have different sides because it makes people more aware of who is spilling the facts or spreading just pure bullshit, much like Fox News delivers their broadcast every night.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:27 PM

I think that this article is very accurate. People may think they are branching out or exploring new horizons when they search the web and read the news. Search engines actually change and might guide us to only articles of certain viewpoints.  In essence, people don't receive the wide scope of information they think they are receiving because the information we intake is often filtered to fit our needs. 

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling

BY 10/15  --CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin explains the debt ceiling | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: NBC’s Kate Snow spoke with CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin  about the debt ceiling and what happens if Congress fails to raise that limit so the government can borrow more money to pay its bills...

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

He certaintly presents the case and all the ramifications very well. He does a good job of showing that if the debt ceiling is reached, alot of problems will arise very quickly.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:30 PM

I am honestly befuddled by this entire predicament. Even after gathering an understanding of the debt ceiling and its impending deadline, I fail to understand why our country's elected officials, this country's highest legal authority, cannot come together and do what is best for those they represent, those who gave them their seats. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:21 PM

It seems that America has very little options, with all of them most likel going to spiral downhill. One question I would like answered is what does the government need to do to get to a point where it doesn't need to borrow money? I think that paying foreign nations back in small amounts would be best; borrowing more and raising the debt ceiling is what placed the goverment in this situation anyway. There are many other ways but I think that that would be the best way.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:43 PM

If we do not raise the debt ceiling, American citizens will experience an extreme loss of goods and services provided by the federal government. Then the government would have to decide if they want to pay back foriegn debtors (like China) and let Americans suffer, or supply goods and services to Americans and let the debt to countries increase until we do not have money yet. The states may have to step up and provide the services that the federal government can't.

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government?

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Government & Politics | Scoop.it

Video on msnbc.com: The age-old practice of politicians re-drawing Congressional districts to find friendly voters, or, gerrymandering, has allowed members of the House of Representatives from both sides of the aisle to stay in power regardless of...


Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

I agree that gerrymandering is a horribly bad and corrrupt practice. It doesn't work in the US Federal model established by the Constitution because that syatem was designed without party concerns. This was done because many of the influencial Founding Fathers knew that political parties would polarize people so that good policy wasn't the primary focus, just greed and influence.

In addition, what does it say about people that they are so predictable as to their opinions and views. If gerrymanderers can tell from some peices of paper how a given person or group will vote than  that goes against the whole concept of freedom of choice. People are still enslaved based on when and how they were born.

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 2014 9:41 PM

1. The House redraws the congressional districts every 10 years on the census in an attempr to make the districts lend their support to whoever the current party majority is.

2. Gerrymandering allows incumbents to get reelected multiple times. 

3. Have a computerized, neutral program that would create districts based on geography and demography. A program such as this would make it more difficult for incumbents to get reelected.

4. Yes, there are. One party could earn more votes than another but still lose the election.

5. No because it is an unhonorable way to earn the respective benefits.

Jessica Markle's curator insight, April 12, 2014 2:09 PM

gerymandering is the act of redrawing a district and its has gotten its name from Albridge Garry who redrew a district in the beginning of our country in order for him to win a vote. The redrawing of the districts almost guarantees a win in voting because it allows the politicians to choose their voters. In the video, suggested possible solutions to gerrymandering would be to redraw district lines according to geography, demographics, and population density but it would cause a disruption in the current system and would make it very difficult for a representative to be reelected to a district that doesn't have the same advantages. Gerrymandering can be compared to the electoral college because these systems don't work in the favor of the public, or the majority vote because with the representatives picking the districts containing people they know will vote for them along with the electoral college being able to override the public vote, it has caused question in the democratic system of the United States.

Lauren Sargent's curator insight, April 17, 2014 9:47 PM

The term gerrymandering comes from an 1810 law that was created by Elbridge Gerry, Governor of Massachusetts, which repositioned and defined congressional districts based on population changes. After the law was passed, newspaper articles came out with pictures of the re-drawn districts in concerning shapes, such as a salamander. They linked the two words “salamander” and “Gerry” and called it gerrymandering. As time has gone on, gerrymandering has been manipulated by both the Republican and Democratic parties by them re-drawing districts specifically to change the possible outcome of their “political cartoon” if you will. House seats are being re-apportioned every presidential election year. The video suggested that these means of politics have made it so that “the politicians are choosing their voters, rather than the voters choosing their politicians”. This is causing major distrust in candidates and decrease in voter participation. Gerrymandering has been beneficial to incumbents because they change their districts to work in favor of their election. Both the Electoral College and gerrymandering can be seen as unfair or corrupt government practices because they can sometimes both not accurately depict the peoples' votes by changing their districts. With the Electoral College, they could win a majority of the electoral votes, but not the majority vote. With gerrymandering, a politician would be elected just because of the re-drawn, manipulated districts, which is ridiculous. 

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

White House Warns Americans About Potential Security Risks of ObamaCare

White House Warns Americans About Potential Security Risks of ObamaCare | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
coal seam gas coal (Now that Coalition gov is in full anti-environmental swing this could not be more urgent and important http://t.co/ingRrItuvY)
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

I think the Obama Administration is being very wise and showing alot of foresight in this matter by having so many security and safety systems in place. When any new system like this is put in place there are problems and people will try to use it to their advantage, so I think its good that they are trying to stem as many problems as they can.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Denis McDonough, in an interview on ABC's 'This Week' said he was 'outraged' at Ted Cruz's comments that our forces would be serving as 'Al Qaeda's air force.' The interview was immediately followed by one with Sen.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

Indeed, this only a reactionary peice, nothing more. Give him no further thought.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:25 AM

30 seconds of generalized response isn't much to go on, and McDonough's statement showed it. Rather than namby-pamby about the issue, everyone needs to grab their fears by the horns are realize: "Yes, we will possibly be helping some groups that are maybe connected to Al-Qaeda. But in the meantime, we can help a whole country of civilians, who, when pressed, will vote for the more reasonable members of the rebels, IF the US helps in time."

 

No more of this "small, calculated, concise" strike nonsense.

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, December 1, 2013 9:02 PM

My initial reacton to Senator Cruz's was similar to McDonough's; Cruz's statement was clearly crafted to be sensational and make headlines. Although I am not a fan of potential United States military action in Syria, Cruz's comments were purposefully disrespectful and, as McDonough iterated, "outrageous".

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:35 PM

It seems very normal and typical for hte Chief of Staff to assure the public that there will be no boots on the ground, but I believe that no amount of assurance that this will be no Libya or Afghanistan, will persuade the American public to join this war.

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com

3: Roundtable: Crucial week for Obama - Video on NBCNews.com | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: A Meet the Press roundtable forecasts the pressure on this upcoming week for the president to make his case for intervention in the Syrian conflict.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

The first illusion to dismiss is that this will not be limited, this is not Libya. When war is called for it must be executed fast, efficentlly, all-consuming, and the enemy should never even think about defing ever again. Their will must be completely destroyed. That is why it should be avoided as much as possible. Everyone can agree that chemical weapons are banned with good reason (referendum on the other weapons), however, Syria does have allies and they're not going to back down from helping protect their ally as it would look bad on their resumes. So, instead of the US acting as a vigilantee outside its jurisdiction ("because no one else will", with good reason), have the US lead the effort through the appropriate channels, the UN. Yes, Russia and others have vetoed military action, so instead have them agree to sanctions, reprovals, ect. The US doesn't need to prove it can intervene, the past 100 years have already done that.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, September 11, 2013 10:36 PM

Really enjoyed this video in the sense that it gave me more insight to what's going on and different points of view. Several points like the fact that innocent civilians will die on our watch because of the airstrike was one i especially liked because it made me think more deeply into why we shouldnt intervene. It's clear that this is a huge predicament that even the Round table finds difficult to choose a side in the sense that as a nation we are stuck on deciding whether to be or not to be the "world's policemen."

Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 11:49 PM

I think that Newt Gingrich brings up good points about why it's hard for the public to support an airstrike on Syria. I think that this dicussion is a fair representation of the current public opinion on the matter- nobody wants to directly support a strike; there is no clear right answer.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:13 PM

All of the politicians here are hesitant about military strikes in Syria. because they aren't sure about the effect that it would cause. Newt Gingrich makes some excellent points about the importance of communication. I believe some action needs to be taken in Syria, but a strike would only unleash more problems for us. Syria's allies are too powerful. 

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

The Syrian regime’s military assets

The Syrian regime’s military assets | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
As the U.S. contemplates air strikes on Syria, observers say the regime has scrambled to move many assets, including chemical weapons stockpiles, into hard-to-attack areas or close to large numbers of civilians.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

While this does list a way to remove the regime's air pressance, it fails to mention what effect this would have. It mentions the defensive sytems they recieved from their ally, Russia. However, it doesn't mention the impact this action would have on the overall mission. Is the Syrian air-force strong enough to repel a coastal missle strike, or would this mearly be a needless waste of money and lives while further increasing international tensions?

more...
Joseph Rumbaut's curator insight, September 12, 2013 7:31 AM

A lot of Syria's military power is concentrated to the West. This makes Syria easy to flank and I'm sure Assad knows this and the U.S. could easily take down Syria but now that Russia's involved it seems like military action will not be necessary

Victor Osorto's comment, September 21, 2013 7:10 PM
The idea of Obama not deploying American Feet on Syrian Soil, but now the focus of attention for our attacks will be the Navy, who as stated in this article, has excellent history in Naval Combat. This just might U.S. the upper-hand if given the go to combat Syria. But Syria's response of equipping war machines in the citizen's villages could trigger Obama on to where to specifically attack and not be guilty for killing innocent lives. U.S has potential to win the war against Syria, but we aren't sure on what Russia has in support for Syria. Although, our Navy has extraordinary missiles, U.S Navy must make sure they make pin-point targets or else they could be facing more drastic measures.
Linh Phan's comment, September 23, 2013 7:14 PM
The Syrian military assets is not the problem. Its out of date and poorly operated, so its not going to be a problem for US attacks because we use missile launches from warships and airplanes. We don't even need to go into Syrian airspace.
Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party

BY 10/24 -- Ted Cruz returns to Texas as a hero who is reshaping the state Republican Party | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Although a newcomer, he is rapidly becoming the model for GOP politicians throughout the state.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This demonstrates that the voice that shouts the loudest is heard. The hardlining of the Republicans is an obvious effect of the growing number of Democrats in Texas. This would have probably happened regardless of Senator Cruz's stand at D.C. He is just a useful poster-child of the movment.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 6:14 AM

In this article, it describes how Ted Cruz is either one or the other, really liked or disliked, in the country. But right now he is very liked by Texas returning as a hero although disliked in the Senate. I like how Cruz is receiving credit in Texas because I like how he stands up for his beliefs and takes risks. I think its fascinating how they predict Texas will become purple but I dont necessarily believe that a continuously red state for multiple years will all of a sudden go purple.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:06 PM

Ted Cruz's impact on Texans and the Republican party.Cruz has inspired GOP candidates to rally for secession, rolling back immigration laws, impeaching President Obama, and amending the Constitutional direct election of Senators. People are following him and changing their views on certain things. This article also addresses the fact that Texas is becoming a more diverse state, with a fainter red part but not entirely blue part, making it a "purple state." 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:23 PM

The article establishes Ted Cruz as a controversial senator from Texas that has quickly gained the attention of most Americans, and explains the possible political changes in Texas due to Ted Cruz. It's interesting to see that he could possibly create a major political change in Texas, where the state goes from a firmly conservative and Republican state to more of a purple state. Cruz also could possibly spark a big change in the ideology of the Republican Party.

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

OPTIONAL -- The debt ceiling battle explained in 12 charts

OPTIONAL -- The debt ceiling battle explained in 12 charts | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
The Christian Science Monitor is an international news organization that delivers thoughtful, global coverage via its website, weekly magazine, daily news briefing, and email newsletters.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:
I like charts as they allow for information to be processed by the Occipital lobe as well. The charts show various data such as the past debt ceilings, where revenue comes from, where overlay goes, and how Denmark deals with their debt ceiling. Some interesting things I learned was that the debt ceiling was raised the most times under Reagan, and the most in amount under Bush (W). Also, most of the federal income is through the civilian income tax, while the most of the expenditures are for Social Security.
more...
Jatoriyae DuPree's curator insight, October 20, 2013 1:03 AM

The debt is extremely high and the deficit has been getting increasingly negative since Bill Clinton. The debt has been steadily increasing for decades but it has risen more in this past two decades than any other time. 

No matter how bad we get, Japan will always be worse. At this rate, we will never pay this thing off. I really didn't know that much money existed. Who do we owe this money to and why did they not buy our land form us.

 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, October 20, 2013 9:44 PM

The US has resorted, multiple times, to raising the debt limit. Having spent less money than they collected, the US accumulated a large amount of deficit. Over the years, multiple presidents have raised the debt ceiling, and no matter the situation, the debt keeps rising, mostly because of the debts held by the public. Compared to other countries, the US ranks only behind Japan in having a lot of debt.

 

Now looking at these graphs, the US appears to be in more rough economic shape than I thought it was in. With all this money we owe  and because of the tons of expenditures, it's no wonder why we have raised the debt ceiling over 30 times. Just look at Denmark. The only time they raised their debt ceiling was once, and their debt level was even close to the debt ceiling limit. Why can't we be like Denmark? Why can't we actually look at our debt and see how to prevent even further problems?

Nicolas Aldape's curator insight, October 22, 2013 5:57 PM

That taught me a lot about the math of deficit spending.
Despite how good a "balanced budget" sounds to voters, it has rarely happened. The debt cieling has gone up to allow for deficit spending, but sometimes it simply outgrows revenue.
I am one who believes that deficit spending can help in times of crisis - the New Deal being a prime example - but deficits occured at times of prosperity as well.  

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare

BY 10/20 -- Jim DeMint: We Won't Back Down on ObamaCare | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
In The Wall Street Journal, president of the Heritage Foundation Jim DeMint writes that fighting a law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This article is a statement of why ObamaCare is not beneficial to the US and why so many people are so vehemontly against it. It discusses the danger and harm that ObamaCare has already caused the economy and taxpayers, and why that it won't get better over time. I agree that ObamaCare isn't good and will harm the US economy over time. Also, it is serving as a very devisive issue, further polarizing the US and the public.

more...
Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 24, 2013 1:59 AM

Demint is obviously biased because he is the president of the leading conservative think tank in America. He claims that he has met people who complained that their converages have been renounced, their work hours cut and their jobs eliminated, but he doesn't have any direct quotes from these people, so it's all just paraphrased. The premiums have increased in 45 states. Young adult's premiums will be a lot higher than those of elderly, which will be hard on us since the baby boomers are all retiring now. The author claims that the only way Obamacare will lead to single-payer health-care system is by employers droping health-care for their low-wage workers. He also claims that health care will deteriorate in America as access to doctors will decrease. 

Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 5:58 PM

Jim Dewint is  republican who believed that the recent government shutdown was both necessary and proper. According to him, it was the only option in fighting against an unfair law. However, he does not mention the effect of the shutdown- the government services that went to a halt, the workers who went unpaid, and those citizens adversely affected. In my opinion, DeWint, and those like him, make America the laughingstock of the global community. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 5:50 PM

President of the Heritage Foundation Jim Demint states that he and many others are not stopping until they have gotten rid of Obamacare. Some main points against Obamacare is that it causes employment issues and citizens can not, financially, withstand the pressure that comes with the arrival of the ACA. While this guy tries to fight against a cause that no one has succeeded in passing for almost 50 years, Obamacare is still alive. Has he done his job in stopping Obamacare.

 

No. Obamacare is still up and running. 40+ times has it been challenged and 40+ times has it succeeded in staying alive and constitutional. Maybe they should stop trying. "Three times, the charm" is the phrase, not "40+ times, the charm."

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common

BY 10/20 -- What Obama and the tea party have in common | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This article puts forward a good case. It discuses the primary focus of Madisonian government. It describes how it was intended to make law-making a slow, incremental process, and executive desicions fast and descisive. It then describes how part of the problem with the current conflict is that the POTUS and the Tea Party have forgotten this. They both want the legeslative process to be fast, descisive, and in agreement with what they want. Additionaly, I think the  comparision with the Kansas-Nebraska Act is very interesting. As is well-known, that was among the last major issues before the Civil War. I wonder if it'll be different this time. I hope it is.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:10 PM

Both are similar in that they are really hard to compromise with. The framers of the government have aimed for the structure of the govt. to balnce out the power. I don't see any similarities between the two other than their characteristics when it comes to compromise.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:26 PM

I strongly agree  that politicians these days are so blinded by their parties' goals that they are unable to make necessary compromises that are better for the country. I like the way that the writer compares the Tea Party with Obama. He also says that because of this unwillingness to compromise, Obama has too much power.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 5:02 PM

The article says that both Obama and the Tea Party don't want to go through the process of compromising that Madison had planned out. They're both impatient and arent willing to work together. I think an issue like this should be compromised, They need to come up with a solution together and figure out what to do. Obama does want the legislative branch to touch Obamacare. In my opinion, thats not very democratic or fair. The legislative branch represents the US citizens. we elect representatives in the legislative branch so we can have a voice. With Obama saying he doesn''t want congess to touch it seems like he doesn't really care about our opinion.

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

Honestly, I really don't know what to think. I want universal healthcare in the US, but I really don't like ObamaCare as I feel it makes too many comprimises and is too complicated to be implemented properly. On the other hand, stopping the government hasn't done anything to ObamaCare and just made all of the national government look stupider than people already think they are.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, October 24, 2013 6:16 PM

This article details a list of Congressional members responsible for this month's government shutdown. A shocking (or perhaps not so shocking) number of these legislators hailed from Texas- these include John Culberson, John Carter, Ted Cruz, and Louis Gohmery. Not at all shockingly, nearly all of those considered responsible for the shutdown are members of the Republican party. Nominally, these "hardliners" ars fighting against an unjust law, but fail to consider those whose lives they ruin with their ideological struggle. 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 7:01 PM

The small group of 32 Republicans shut down the government, refusing to support any resolution to fund the government that didn't defund Obamacare. Also, the article lists the 32 Republicans and quotes them about the government shutdown. I think that the republicans should be a little more open-minded and more willing to compromise. Those from Texas are John Carter, Randy Neugebauer, John Culberson, Steve Stockman, Louie Gohmert, and Randy Weber. 

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 1:17 PM

This article sheds light on the 32 conservatives who are blamed for the shutdown simply because they didn't support the funding of a government that didn't defund Obamacare. Instead of informing us about the actual crisis, they biasedly stick quotes from each conservative and place blame on Republicans for the shut down.

Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

Government Shutdown 2013 Date: What Happens To Obamacare, Social ... - The Inquisitr

Government Shutdown 2013 Date: What Happens To Obamacare, Social ... - The Inquisitr | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
ThinkProgress
Government Shutdown 2013 Date: What Happens To Obamacare, Social ...
The Inquisitr
In order to prevent a government shutdown in 2013, both political parties would have to come to an agreement very soon.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This shows that the current economic crisis is far reaching in its effect. If the budget isn't resolved many essential services will shut down, possibly for good. If people thought the international backlash to Syria was bad, what would it be if FEMA wasn't around during the next big hurricane, American air traffic slows to a crawl, another Three Mile Island occurs, ect.

more...
No comment yet.
Scooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
President Obama’s approach to Syria is likely to create an important precedent in the often murky legal question of when presidents or nations may lawfully use military force.
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

As far as the "punishment" of Assad, a precedent was set at the Nuremburg Trials (look it up). Assad could certaintly be tried for crimes against humanity and that would certaintly be something that more people could rally around.

more...
Tianna Kelly's curator insight, September 11, 2013 1:23 PM

I don't understand President Obama's statement that we must attack Syria because of U.S. national interests. What interests are these? Also, while Obama does legally have the right to launch a military attack on Syria without Congressional approval, the fact that public opinion says that we should not intervene, and that the U.S. is a supposed Democratic country, mean that he should not take it upon himself to act outside of public and Congressional approval. Otherwise, how is he any better than Assad?

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 1:13 AM

I think Obama was facing all of this superficial, but ever-growing, pressure to do something about Syria, ANYTHING, as long as he just didn't sit idly by. Then, when he finally chose his only viable path (at the time), most people balked at the severity. Iraq and Afghanistan linger more than Kuwait, Kosovo, and Libya. Saving face became the only possible measure afterwards, and forget the actual politics, weapons, and lives at stake.

My personal opinion, of course.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 18, 2014 12:31 PM

Events like this happen in hundreds of different countries yet the US has never gotten involved. Also, the law against chemical weapons is international, therefore, the United Nations should be dealing with this, not the US alone. Of course, the UN would never go for it seeing as how Russia is an ally of the Syrian government. more importantly the situation is lose, lose. We do not need to be involved in this fight, it's not ours.

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval

Sen. Ted Cruz: I Don't Think President Obama 'Has the Authority' to Order Syria Strike Without Congressional Approval | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Contradicting President Obama’s assertion, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas said this morning on “This Week” that the president does not have the authority to order a military strike on Syria without Congressional approval.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

He makes valid points. Like in almost every armed conflict in history there is no "good guy vs bad guy" there are only enemies and allies. Hitler and Stalin were both once little boys almost beaten to death by they're fathers, repeatedly. Any action taken by the US should have at least international verbal support, if not military as well.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 17, 2013 12:19 AM

Cruz spoke very well for the majority of the speech: he made a reasonable case about why an attack would not work. But he faltered on two points. One: The state of Texas, vast as though it may be, does not represent the United States. Two: It's almost become customary of Republicans to bring up Benghazi whenever possible. It happened, nothing short of a full-scale operation and the ability to see the future could have prevented it, let the American dead rest in peace.

 

Also, the longer you show the US not supporting innocent civilians, the more and more radical these "Islamic terrorists" will become. Cut to the chase - or in this case, a missile strike - and nip the thing in the bud before it grows too big.

Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 8:20 PM

Cruz makes it clear that he does not approve of military action in Syria. He believes a strike would aid rebel forces with links to Al-Qaeda. The strike may weaken Assad, but it would only give rebel forces an opportunity to swoop in. His precautions with the attack are plausible. I like the point he made about how OUR US military is not Al-Qaeda's air force. They are here to defend the United States.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:16 PM

This video shows how complicated this whole situation is, and I had no idea how opposed the public was to involvment in Syria. Is there is a way to reprimand him without a strike? War crimes need to be reprimanded, but does this mean we have to go to war? I was all for involvment, but now I'm really questioning whether that would be the right thing to do.

Rescooped by AndrewBellAPGOPO from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria - Alex Isenstadt and James Hohmann

The party of hawks turns dovish on Syria - Alex Isenstadt and James Hohmann | Government & Politics | Scoop.it
Of all the unexpected turns in the Syria debate, one stands out most: The GOP, the party of a muscular national defense, has gone the way of the dove.

Via Teresa Herrin
AndrewBellAPGOPO's insight:

This article makes a point, if not only the party but the same people that have pushed for intervention and war in the past arn't now, shouldn't that be an event to consider? They have seen how wars can escalate, what was supposed to be quick regime changes has turned into two, full-scale wars that have lasted for most of our lives. If war is to be had, let it occur not as a one sided vigilante mission, but a last resort agreed upon by the majority of the players involved. As far as Assad's statment, what kind of leader/dictator would he be if some far away country threatens him and his government and he doesn't try to save what he can and imply threats of his own (however limited they maybe). The protesters where funny,  their chants rhymed.

more...
No comment yet.