Jacking Your Party Politcal Style
5 views | +0 today
Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Scooped by Jackie Riff
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 | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
While even highly offensive speech is protected in the U.S., that level of freedom is quite unique.
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article talks about how America’s freedom of speech policy is shocking to the rest of the world. This started from a French issue with an anti-Muslim video that went viral. American’s think that this is a normal, so they're shocked by the  French government limiting it's citizen's  expression. It's unfortunate that some Americans don't realize that we live in a privileged country that allows for such a freedom . We definitely should not limit free speech, unless it is accompanied by a physically or psychologically harmful action or demonstration.

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. 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (2 of 3) -- Your Obamacare questions, answered | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Still left wondering about Obamacare? Wonkblog’s Sarah Kliff and PostTV’s “In Play” have the Kliff Notes version for you.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article summarizes many answers to FAQ's about ObamaCare. It seems that many Americans are unaware of these details concerning the healthcare plan, and are thus resenting the legislation. ObamaCare only applies to about 7% of Americans who cannot afford basic healthcare. Now, they will be able to choose various packages of coverage at more affordable rates. Although ObamaCare is open to all, those who already have coverage need not worry about being affected.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:29 PM

So requirements for obtaining Obamacare is basically asking us to be a bit...poor? Having national healthcare is the same as not having one because only the basics are paid. Honestly, my insurance company can do just about the same thing and I don't mind the bills if they can cover for EVERYBODY part I injured.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

This article talks about Obama Care and how everyone will have to have health insurce eventually. It also talks about how Insurance companies cannot deny anyone from buying their healthcare because of pre-existing conditions. This could be beneficial  because there's many sick people who cannot afford heath care when they really need it, and no one will get screwed over.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:44 PM
This article includes FAQs concerning ObamaCare. All the questions asked and answered include a quick explanation of ObamaCare, all the existing insurance difficulties, process of enrollment and the legality of remaining without health insurance. The health cares lunch was very big and messy for Obama so it is interesting that it has taken this long for an article like this to come out.
Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 3rd or 4 -- Pastor loses bus driving job for praying with students | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
A bus driver for the Burnsville school district was fired last week for leading kids in Christian prayers on his bus, even after he was warned to stop — a move he considers a violation of his freedom of speech...

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

Regardless of his other job as a pastor, a public school bus driver has no right to inflict prayer upon impressionable kids. If he wants to pray for the kids' safety, that's fine, but he can do so to himself. The prayers clearly have made some of the kids uncomfortable as he'd been issued a warning and fired over this matter. If he is going to have two occupations, then he needs to keep them seperate. He may have the freedom of speech, but those kids were in the captivity of his bus, forced to listen for the duration of the ride. 

more...
Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:36 PM

This article talks about a bus driver who lost his job because, even after a few warnings, he chose to pray to students on his bus. He believes that him getting fired violates the first amndment, right to religion. I can see his point on this, but I feel like if you're doing something like this is public and offending others then youre in face in a sense violating their right to religion, so it's a lose-lose situation, and he was bound to lose his job.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:43 PM

I think that although i am a christian it  can be very uncomfortable when people get a religion forced  on them. Praying on a public school bus can probably be uncomfortable for some kids and although it was in good intentions it is probably not the best. It's good for people to share their religion but on their own time not during school. If it were a private christian school then that would be completely acceptable. 

Ashley O.'s curator insight, March 7, 2014 9:45 PM

That is unfair, he has every right to express his faith, just like those who are not religious and express their personal views. 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE]

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 2nd or 4 -- Supreme Court hears argument on prayer at government meetings [UPDATE] | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
The U.S. Supreme Court heard argument Wednesday on the constitutionality of opening government meetings with prayer, but the justices seemed unsure how to rule.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

The Supreme Court is currently deliberating on a case about the constitutionality of the use of prayer in court. While many states approve of the tradition, others believe that practicing such prayer encourages Christianity. I believe that a personal or no prayer may be performed by each individual court member if he or she wishes, yet nothing standard should be expected, because forcing all to join in prayer would inhibit the freedom of one's personal religion. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:45 PM

The case won't be settled anytime soon due to that covers  controversial issues between the First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and speech, and the separation of church and state. It will be interesting to see where Anthony Kennedy's vote goes toward on this case.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:17 PM

I can't understand this government's "endorsement of religion". Does the free excercise clause only pertain to prohibition of enacting a single religion? Does it exclude the right to be proud of having a religion? Would it be distasteful if a teacher wear a rosary? As long as a religion is not enforced upon the unsastisfied individual, then let the government and its civil servants be humans with religions (practice as they so choose to).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:29 PM

This article talks about prayers being said in a court room. I don't see why this is such a controversy, let people be and pray if they want to. Yes I get the separation of church and state thing, but this really doesnt affect the "state".

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist?

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (1 or 4 total) -- Did A Supreme Court Justice Just Admit To Being An Atheist? | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case about the constitutionality of a New York town's practice of beginning local legislative meetings with mostly Christian prayers.
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article speculates whether a remark made by Justice Stephen Breyer implies his atheism. Even though Breyer is known to be a non practicing Jew, the media and public have invested considerable amounts of time analyzing the "true" religion of this justice. Religion should not play a role in politics, yet for a country built on freedoms including religion we have yet to truly diversify our government. Characters are judged based on religious beliefs, whereas characters need to be judged by merit. It seems as if politicians are mainly focused on having religion play in as a reason for support of various legislation. If Breyer were an atheist, I think that would be wonderful. Our country has a huge percentage of atheists, so I'd appreciate that our judicial body accurately represents the citizens. 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:05 PM

I can see how this irritates people but not enough to ....offend them. Seriously? Who cares if people are praying, "beginning legislative meetings with Christian prayers" is a practice done by Christians (if they're so fervent, FOR CHRISTIANS. If you are not a part of that group, then shut them out and look bored. 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, so are judges and politicans not the people? Getting upset over such trivial matter, beliefs inherent in a faith BELIEVED by THE PEOPLE --is in itself a discrimination. I refuse to pity those that feel "outcasted", if you're so bold on nonconforming, you're expected to be 'strong' when people practice their religions. Not weak and complaining all the time.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:02 PM

This article talks about Justice Breyer and how he admitted to being an atheist. I don't really think that this should be of much importance, even as a christian myself, because our nation is based on separtion or church and state, right? If a justice chooses to be an atheist, then let them.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:12 PM

I think that the supreme court has made it a point to be very neutral when it comes to religion topics and that in public situations no religions should be favored. But all of the supreme court members have always been religious so it is interesting that he may be athiest and it would be interesting to see how the country would perceive that. 

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (3 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Rick Perry in Iowa

ABC's Jeff Zeleny goes one-on-one with Gov. Rick Perry on his first trip to Iowa since 2012.
Jackie Riff's insight:

Rick Perry is just being passive aggressive in his views towards Christie. Stop the political jargon to confuse the main point. He also stated that if one can't win an election, they can't govern. He exemplifies the epitome of the confusion in the correlation between government and politics. There should be none. To govern, one needs to be smart, insightful, open minded, confident, and resourceful. Spending fortunes on promotional campaigns take away from the issues. He's an idiot. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:33 PM

This video is a discussion with Rick Perry, talking about issues like Obamacare. He is very bold and is not very afraid to say that he is against the act. He obviously is unhappy with the current situation in the White House, and wants to make a change in 2016 by running for the presidency himself. I am interested to see how the 2016 election turns out for him.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:50 PM

With one year left in office, Perry is planning on running for the 2016 Election as is predicted in his trip to Iowa.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 8:28 PM

This video talks about Rick Perry and his plans to run for president in 2016, Perry discusses his views on Ted Cruz and his agreements/disagreements with this tactics. He also says that Christie may not be a true conservative.

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY Friday, 11/8 --ONLY ONE Scoop -- Nate Silver on 'This Week' (See the instructions for your Scoop)

ESPN's Nate Silver, the roundtable analyze the political picture for the 2014 election.


Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

The  starts with Obama announcing Nate Silver's accurate prediction for his 2012 re-election campaign. The group then discusses  issues of the upcoming midterm election. With ObamaCare still vastly unorganized  and the government shutdown still relevant, all eyes are watching and criticizing the government and its actions. Silver argues that when issues are criticized they tend to stay with Americans and possibly play into the outcome of the mid-term elections. An embarassing low congressional approval rating is shown, yet Silver assures that these numbers were not of an accurate representation.

Gov. Chris Christie becomes the topic of conversation as the panel discusses issues dealing with property and poverty problems.

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:29 PM

This video discussed the chances of Republicans or Democrats winning the House in the upcoming midterm elections. Many of the issues that seem to be swaying voters one way or another are social issues, so if they want to win, they need to choose the social issues that appeal to the largest amount of voters.. Voters want to vote for a candidate that they think is most like themselves. 

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:16 PM

Congressional approval rating is down to 12% approved due to the Repubs' demand for a shutdown and the Demos' disorganized healthcare bill. Guesses for the coming House election has Demos and Repubs on an equal stand, Demos leading by only 8%. Who's to say states are getting ready to shift colors. 8% is nothing to give the wins to Demos. The healthcare bill doesn't seem to work itself out anytime soon, and as laid offs increase, the anger for govt shutdown decreases over time. I don't see any faction in the lead, the 48 to 40 percent will equal out quite soon.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 7:18 PM

This video talks about how Nate Silver predicted 2012's election outcome. Later the midterm election is talked about. Apparently the rating fot democrats and republicans are low because of  the government shut down and problems with  Obamacare.It's evedently clear that the minority opinion is becoming stonger and stronger.

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- Nightly News: Obama’s approval rating drops to all-time low

BY 10/31 -- Nightly News: Obama’s approval rating drops to all-time low | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams
Jackie Riff's insight:

Honestly, I just feel bad for Obama. Much of his dissaproval is a result of problems that are out of his hands, such as Congress not agreeing with his policies or the Obamacare website having glitches. However, his inability to quickly make decisions and act on several agendas, such as Syria, have a great impact on the public's view of their leader. Obama first revealed himself to the country in 2008 as a strong man with change in his eyes and drive in his heart. Now, he's showing himself to be indecisive and unable to pass his policies. 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:00 PM

This video explains the president's approval ratings have dropped and the affect Obama's leadership has on the nation.  I think the trials of Obama have been difficult and must be difficult for him to juggle everything. It makes sense as to why Obama has lost approval ratings because the public is tired of not getting what was promised. Especially now with the NSA leaks as well...He may continue to lose approval.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 5:39 PM

It's not shocking that President Obama's presidential rating and personal rating have gotten dropped to an all-time low. I agree that President Obama should show more involvement with fixing the Obamacare issues because as of right now he's shown very little, and that's one of the many reasons his rating is so low.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:47 PM

Obamas ratings have dropped a lot since the beginning of his presidency the obamacare does not seem to be working out for him very well. His ratings used to be a lot higher and now they are making a record breaking low. 

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress

BY 11/3 -- Booker Brings Dash Of Diversity To Still Old, White Senate -- Demographics of Current Congress | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Cory Booker becomes ninth African-American to serve in the Senate, replacing Frank Lautenberg.
Jackie Riff's insight:

The lack of diversity presented in Congress is absolutely ridiculous. America is supposed to be a melting pot of various ethnicities, genders, religions, and beliefs, yet even in modern day, the country still clings to it middle aged white male sterotype. We need senators and representators that do just that, REPRESENT. The congressmen need to be accurate representations of the citizens while advocating for the citizens. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:30 PM

The electio of Senator Cory Booker will add some diversity to the Senate because he is a a relatively young African American. Most of the Senate consists of old white people. This trend is starting to change a little, especially the Democratic side. A more diverse Congress will be able to better address the concerns of different groups of people.This is reflecting the nation a little bit more, the diversity of this nation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 4:07 PM

This article talks about the young and new african-american senator and the diversity in the senate. With our country being as diverse as it is, so should our government. That would lead to a better represented population.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:05 PM
I think it is good for congress e to be diverse and have different ethinicities, different genders, different ages, and different parties. When passing bills and making decisions you will get a diverse group of opinions making it better for the people
Scooped by Jackie Riff
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 | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | 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.
Jackie Riff's insight:

Paul clearly isn't seriously proposing a new amendment, rather he's trying to make a point. Ideally, yes, having a law apply to all seems fair and just. In making this blunt proposal, he's exemplifying the "unfairness" of the Afforable Care Act, and how it doesn't make sense that others are paying for what doesn't apply to them. Honestly, I'm so sick of the arguments over the act. I don't even care what the result is, but our country needs to be focussed on fixing itself before trying to improve anything. 

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.

Rescooped by Jackie Riff 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 | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

No blame can be placed on a single head. Obviously, anyone trying to pass a piece of legislation would love for the process to be simple, ideal to all, and enacted quickly. That will never be the case in Washington, especially as the political parties become more adamant about bills pertaining to their ideological views. Compromises, agreements, and back-alley deals are inevitable and necessary to make headway in Congress. Although seemingly ideal, Madisonian government was designed for a completely different society. Times have changed, therefore, new political practices are deemed necessary. 

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.

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | 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
Jackie Riff's insight:

Gerrymandeing absolutely leads to a dysfunctional government. One member in the video said that the government is choosing the voters, rather than the voters choosing their government. All politics and fairness is lost in this game. I still don't understand how gerrymandering is legal. If the government wants to truly represent its people, then we should elect our government members through popular vote. Otherwise, the minorities in the district have little to no say.

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. 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from News You Can Use - NO PINKSLIME
Scoop.it!

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte

Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times' - Conservative Byte | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Obama: 'Raising the Debt Ceiling...Does Not Increase Our Debt,' Though It Has 'Over 100 Times'

Via #BBBundyBlog #NOMORELIES Tom Woods #Activist Award #Scoopiteer >20,000 Sources >250K Connections http://goo.gl/ruHO3Q
Jackie Riff's insight:

The phrase "the debt ceiling" needs to be renamed. That phrase paints a picture of bills piled to the ceiling, a sight of utter hopelessness. All raising the debt ceiling really does is hold Congress accountable for its expenses. We need debts paid off to have a more stable budget, thus spurring more money into the flow of the economy. Especially when dealing with so many expensive humanitarian projects overseas, the financial stability of our country is vital. 

more...
Mark Sam's curator insight, September 25, 2013 1:13 AM

Obama says that we have raised the debt ceiling 'over 100 times', but most of the time, debt only increases.  Does he not understand that?  He says that raising the debt ceiling is not increasing debt, but there is a much greater chance in increasing debt from raising the ceiling.  I believe we would be much better suited to use the amount of debates we're currently using on the debt ceiling to use on how to eliminate our debt all together.  Why talk about ways to spend more when we should talk about ways to spend less?

Brian Cohen's curator insight, September 25, 2013 3:52 PM

Does anybody understand what Obama is saying about the debt cieling? Even though it's been done over 100 times does not necessarily mean that it works. It has probably been used so many times because it gives the government more freedom to go further in debt instead of taking responsibility for the high debt and finding a solution for it. And I will just come out and say it, President Obama could not have been more wrong when he said that raising the debt ceiling doesn't raise the debt. The government is going to take advantage of the extra "leeway" given to them if the ceiling is increased. 

Jalyssa Martinez's curator insight, September 26, 2013 2:10 AM

Obama, you can keep saying that raising the debt ceiling does not mean we're increasing in debt, and if we're not increasing ind ebt, why must the debt celing limit keep rising? 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (3 of 3) -- Democrats Threaten to Abandon Obama on Health Law Provision | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Congressional Democrats are increasingly expressing support for allowing Americans to retain the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article discusses how many Congressional Democrats are on the verge of abandoning Obama due to a provision of the Affordable Care Act. Obama stated that those who already have healthcare coverage wouldn't be affected by this legislation, yet now it seems that those people will be penalized for keeping their previous plans. The Congressional Democrats want to allow the health care companies to continue to sell their plans, yet it's argued that allowing such action would undermine the already falty Affordable Care Act. 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:33 PM

Enrollment is low for the Affordable Healthcare and Demos are planning to ditch Obama. His top aides suggested cancellation but maybe Obama is saving face, he doesn't think the plan will dry up...oh but it might just will.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:53 PM

This article talks about how Obamacare is doing lots of things it said it wouldn't, like getting rid of American's insurance coverage when the president said they would keep it. Democrats and republican's are agreeing with each other on not making american's keep the obamacare.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:30 PM
This article talks about how some democrats have been threatening to abandon Obama on Health Law Provision. It says that the Democrats in congress have been more supportive of the idea that Americans should be allowed to keep the insurance coverage they are losing because of the Affordable Care Act after Obama already stated that they could keep their existing insurance. Obama is just digging himself a deeper hole.
Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov

BY 11/14 or 11/15 (1 of 3) -- Administration: 106,000 enrolled in health insurance in first month of HealthCare.gov | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Of the 106,000 enrollees, only about 27,000 were able to sign up through the federal health-insurance site.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article discusses the current "failure" of ObamaCare. Once released, website glitches caused the already low number of those enrolled to even be able to sign up for the new health care plan. What many seemed to not understand is that although affordable healthcare ideally is appealing, many will wait to see how the new healthcare system will function, before signing up themselves. I'm assuming that due to the vast amount of controversy and problems surrounding this system, many possible candidates will choose to opt out of ObamaCare. 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:22 PM

The figures are not up to what was predicted because the people lose trust in such a brittle plan. Its new, disorganized and made with haste, those who signed up stopped midway because they were informed of its problems or because they thought about how the elites' not getting proper pay might trickle down to their jobs.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:26 PM

This article talks about the 106,000 people that enrolled inObama's health insurance in just the first month. That number was way lower than the predictions they had made. It also talks about attempts to pass laws that allow people to keep their old health polices. Its honestly not that shocking that people wouldn't jump to join the new healthcare plan.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 10:22 PM
I think that obviously Obama and his administration had i hopes and expectations for the health care and it was not as successful as they would have liked it to be in the beginning. I think that the website having difficulties and congress not complying is making it a lot harder and not going over as smoothly as planned.
Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 4th or 4 -- Texas and 5 Other States Resist Processing Benefits for Gay Couples | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Some states are citing a conflict with state laws to defy the defense secretary’s order that gay spouses of National Guard members be given the same federal marriage benefits as heterosexual spouses.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

It's time for the nation to except the growing approval of same sex marraige. Six states have already made same sex marraige legal, yet the federal law does not allow those the same benefits as would be granted to a heterosexual couple. Several southern states have refused to carry out the Defense Secretary's decree that partners of those in the military are allowed to receive benefits. Claiming that this decree would be discriminating against others who are unable to receive such benefits, the conservative states hold tightly to their traditional values. The issue of same sex marraige is solely about a conflict in relgious views and what's deemed as right. The Bible claims that a man cannot spill his seed, so most people interpret that as homosexuality is a bad thing. The same context could be used to argue the use of contraceptives. Keep in mind that women have no seeds to spill, so lesbians technically aren't biblically in the wrong. In a country based on freedom, it is outrageous that we have yet to accept all sexualities. The happiness of others in finding their life partners should not be a burden to our lives. People need to just accept all different types of people and move on. 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 4:12 PM

Some States deny the confirming of marriage benefits for homosexual couples. Personally, I find this a little funny, because the article notes that these States want to "uphold their integrity". Uhm, what sort of integrity? That homosexual marriages are not....marriages- that is, believed by the people and conservative state legislators? I can't figure out this lame excuse of "integrity", because really, refusing to accept other people's decisions are no sort of integrity. (Feeling neutral about gay marriages does not mean I fervently support it).

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 1:09 PM

This article talks about Texas and other states refusing giving the same marriage benefits to gay couples as man/woman couples in the national guard. Defense Secretary Hagel had ordered that gay spouses of the National guard be given the same rights, but Texas and others aren't budging. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 10:58 PM

I think that gay people should have the same rights as other marriages. I think that especially same sex military couples should get the same benefits as everyone else. It doesn't affect anyone but them so it is obnoxious and annoying not to give it to them. Yes the states that are resisting to give the gay couples the benefits are very conservative it does not mean that we should not give everyone the same military couple benefits no matter who they are it is there right they risk there lives to serve our country and can't get couple benefits all because they are gay. That is absurd and ridiculous. 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights

BY 11/12 or 11/13 -- 1st of 4 -- Snake Handling: Law vs. First Amendment rights | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
A LaFollette pastor headed to court next week for having dozens of poisonous snakes at his church said the laws he allegedly violated in Tennessee infringe on his freedom of religion.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

A church illegally uses snakes to relate to Bible scriptures, claiming that they bring the members closer to God. The use of such dangerous reptiles is illegal, due to the possible danger and nuisance. The pastor is aware of this law, yet still continues this practice, because it's defended by his freedom of religion. This conflict has posed a problem for courts, especially as many snake handlers wrongfully claim the same justification. 

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:54 PM

Religious or not. Law or not. Who cares?! If people's lives are clearly at risk, why are such practices disputable? It's apparent that if people are not professional at handling dangerous animals, do not do so. Period. Why is the government dragged into this? and why is this stupid minister leading a blind crowd?

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, February 2, 2014 12:55 PM

This article talks about a Pastor who has to go to court because he had poisonous snakes at his church during service; however some may say that this violates one's freedon of practicing religion. In court he justifies his act with the 1st Amendment. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:18 PM

I think that if you bring a poisonous snake into your church it will probably not help bring people back. So on the pastors part that was just a weird and irrational demonstration that he could have gotten his point across in a different way. Although you do have freedom of expression and speech i do not think that is how it should be used. 

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (2 or 4 total) -- Video: 'This Week': Twitter Transforms Politics

The roundtable debates the role of social media in politics following Twitter's IPO.
Jackie Riff's insight:

This video was about the coming out party of Twitter. Twitter now holds a power in politics. Chuck Grassley was subject to several scrutinized tweets. Twitter is also being used as a method for dispersing vital information quickly to the public. Let's not forget that Twitter is a two way street where the public is able to respond to the messages of other users, so constituents are able to contact their congressional representatives. 

more...
Maddie Callen's curator insight, December 20, 2013 11:39 AM

twitter has greatly changed politics for better or for worse. consituents can communicate with representatives even easier. some politicans are thought more of as celebrities now especially during election time when they will be on the cover of magaizines and on tabloids. politicains can sometimes seem unproffesional on twitter using slang and abreviations but i think they should try to sound more proper.

Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:39 PM

Almost 100% of politicians are involved in the practice of twittering. It's another way to rant, complain and tattle tale through personal media. There's no way for policies to restrain politicians from interracting with the public through media. Politics can now reach out to the lazy, young generations and plus they can control the news they want to put out individually.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 10:06 PM

This video talks about how twitter is changin politics and the information communicated through it, using twitter makes it that much faster and easier to get information out there. Twitter has such a large ammount of users interested in politics, that it made sense for politians to create accounts. It's cool seeing politians, old and young, adapt to these new trends!

Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!)

BY 11/10 or 11/11 (4 of 4 total)-- How Obama Blew the Entire Last Year (Be sure to include the graphic in your analysis!) | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
In the 12 months since his reelection, the president has achieved far less than he expected and suffered one mishap after another.
Jackie Riff's insight:

This entire article simply lists the bad decisions and unfortunate events faced by the President. Although only human, the President is still held to an extremely high standard of expectations, includying the ability to effectively handle crisis management and prioritize the needs of the country. From school shootings to Benghazi, government leaks to Syria, the shutdown to political chaos, it seems as if Obama has faced it all. Some could argue that the President shouldn't be held responsible for all of these horrible occurances, yet as the face of the country, he was elected to serve rightfully, which is why his approval rating has dropped to such a low.

more...
Nghi Bui's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:30 PM

Kind of a biased article. Catalogued how Obama managed to screw up his second term by promising to have more actions and less talk (as they've always done) but he ended up swallowing his words. Wasting huge national sums on....gun control (because a crazy dude killed 20 elementary kids)...really how hard is gun control that you have to spend so much on it. In his second reelection, he stated that he wanted to focus more on immigration laws. Wait, I haven't heard anything significant about such matters. Ah well, I guess he's trying to save the economy. No, not happening either, because he came up with a very smart plan, the National Healthcare (no really, its a very merciful plan but it needs MORE planning yeah?) and that basically screw up another large chunk of dough. Oh boy, I guess he still has his Congress to help him out. NOPE they're full of Republican babies. Then Obama wanted to help out with Syria, asking Putin to withdraw their rejection but Snowden is stuck in Russia, revealing unwanted, embarassing government documents. Obama is at a standstill.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 7:57 PM

This article talks about Obama's struggles as president throughout both terms, and his struggle with dealing with the republicans. At the moment, our presidents approval ratings are at their lowest because it seems as though Obama's getting nothing done in office. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:09 PM
I think that Obama was not expecting all these setbacks. He set high goals for himself and he was determined to carry them out. Things have not gone as planned for Obama and his polls have gone down. In the video the guy said "the obamacare website is one month old and still like all one month old it is still shitting its pants" so that speaks for itself and how obama is doing.
Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email

BY 11/3 -- Is email ever private? Take a tour of the path traveled by your email | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Video on msnbc.com: Critical questions are being raised about data safety in light of hacking reports and news about NSA data collection. NBC’s Stephanie Gosk explains what happens after you hit ‘send’ on an email message.
Jackie Riff's insight:

Aside from the government's secrets being leaked, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Nothing I email is ever top secret or extremely personal. It's not like these companies and or the government have officials to just sit down and read through every single person's emails. Their ability to access our accounts is generally, I presume and hope, purely for security purposes. Also, sending letters through the mail isn't sufficient either. Letters get lost, stolen, or messed up. The only way to securely handle tip top secret meetings is face to face. 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:07 PM

This video enlightens us in depth of the workings of email and how it is possible for others to view and who could possibly be watching where it goes. Suprisingly the data doesnt stay in the states but actually travels over seas. This video just re stated all that we know and gave more detail about the whole situation.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 25, 2014 6:43 PM

This video shows us that it true when they say anything you put on the internet will be there forever, and many of us blow that off. I feel that we all need to be a little more mindful of what we say and do online, and we should keep a lot more private.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:53 PM

Lately there has been a lot of controversy over the government reading peoples phone txts emails social media phone calls ect. I think that the people have the right to privacy as stated in the constitution. 

Rescooped by Jackie Riff from AP Government & Politics
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Residents of rural areas feel shut out of their states' politics, so why not create their own?

Via Teresa Herrin
Jackie Riff's insight:

Any talk of secession makes my eyes roll. Obviously there is no way that will gain congressional approval. Although the angered citizens make a fair arguement, secession is not nor will ever be a viable solution. Somehow those citizens need to speak with their representatives and senators to have their voices heard. Perhaps trying to compromise on certain issues in return for support could be a possibility. Regardless, secession just seems like an immature cry for attention, but that could possibly be their goal afterall. All people need to have a voice in their country, and it is unfair that the minority gets forgotten. 

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, December 20, 2013 3:12 PM

This article talks about citizens, counties, and groups in general in certain states claiming that they want to secede from their state and make a new one. The main group that seems to have a problem is the Republicans living in a Democratic region. For example in Colorado, a vote is going tobe held for secession. I  think that if people have problems with beliefs and the way things work in a certain state, that they should leave. You cant change the whole state to meet all of your standards.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 3:29 PM

The article says that many counties's rural residents  are feeling the need secede and create a new state. Northern counties want to create their own state because they don't agree with the rest of colorado. While the creation of a new state seems a bit extreme, I feel like these residents need to be better represented to avoid ideas like secession. 

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 2014 8:00 PM
I think this is simple if you don't like where you live move. It would be completely outrageous to secede and create another state let alone new gvt. The economy would fail and it would be a mess.
Scooped by Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads

BY 11/3 -- Tale Of The Tape: Comparing The Budget Committee Heads | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray are likely to at least set a friendly tone during budget talks.
Jackie Riff's insight:

This article interestingly discusses the similarities and differences between Congress' Budget Committee heads, Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray. It's very interesting to see how although they had a similar upbringing, the both have very different stances and solutions on how to deal with current economic and budgetary issues. Both possess fantastic leadership qualities, so I'm interested to see how they will work things out in the future. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 8:25 PM

This article compares the leaders of the House and Senate Buget Committees. It is very good to know that two people who disagree about policy issues can still get along; which is very difficult to find nowadays. In Congress nowadays, this seems to be very rare. However, this does not mean it will be easy to compromise about the budget since the two parties they represent might not be willing. Many members of Congress should look at their example and learn from it.

Adriana Cruz's curator insight, January 28, 2014 3:36 PM

This article talks about Paul Ryan and Patty Murray's  different approaches of handling the budget issue. They both each have their own style which approaching the decisions, and different plans as to how to solve the issue.

Alex fowler's curator insight, February 2, 2014 11:42 PM

Both Paul Ryan and Patty Murray are extremely different I think it should be interesting to see how they will work together it says they both come from similar backgrounds. When Paul was 16 his father passed away and when Murray was in her teens her dad developed an illness and her mom found a job and they lived off of welfare so they are both raised with common backgrounds but their ideologies now are extremely different so it should be interesting to see how they work together. 

Scooped by Jackie Riff
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. | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.
Jackie Riff's insight:

Before I begin, I'd just like to say that Obama's title isn't "Mr.Obama". It's Mr. President. Address him as such. Now once again, actions of the government are solely being blamed on the president. Yes, Obamacare was his bill, but all of the website glitches, inefficiencies, and weird loopholes are the faults of those who put the plan into action. With any change this great, problems are inevitable. I'm sure that given time these problems will be resolved. Agreeing with the author, I do believe that Obama needs to make sure he keeps his promises. I do not approve of the vague claims that all matters are fine. Just apologize for the problems and vow to take care of them, explaining to your country how you will accomplish such. This bill directly affects the majority of the country, so we all have a right to know what specifically is going on. 

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 Jackie Riff
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- 32 Republicans Who Caused the Government Shutdown | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | Scoop.it
Meet the House conservative hardliners.

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 

Jackie Riff's insight:

These Republicans don't seem to realize the true damage that their stubborness is causing. They are destroying the state of the country. There is a reason congressional approval is at an all time low; these people are crazy. Were there no other tactics they could have used to lessen the support for Obamacare? Did these drastic measure really need to be taken? They are trying to prove a point at the expense of the people they should be protecting. It's absolutely ridiculous. The problems Obamacare has already had should be enough to decrease its popularity on its own. Shutting down the entire government at the expense of its people is not the answer. 

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.

Rescooped by Jackie Riff 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 | Jacking Your Party Politcal Style | 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
Jackie Riff's insight:

Sorkin explains how the Treasury is responsible for the chaos regarding the debt ceiling. They're claiming that there's no "wiggle room" and that their only option is to spend the government's money until it runs out. As far as apportioning payments and bills with what money remains, there seems to be no clear consensus. China bought our treasury bills, so now the country is faced with paying higher taxes to compensate the interest payments or dealing with the removal of common goods and services. Also, it is extremely likely that this will all lead to the government's inability to pay social security and veteran's checks.

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.