JessicaLartigueBH...
Follow
3 views | +0 today
 
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
onto JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Obama keeps saying it is important to carry out this attack because of important national interests. But why? What interests?...

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.

Your new post is loading...
Your new post is loading...
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

In talking about the midterm elections next year, this video is about what approval ratings does congress and the president have and who is gaining popularity. Because of Syria, government shutdown, and Obama Care, congress and the president's public approval ratings are very low. 

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.

Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Patty Murray are likely to at least set a friendly tone during budget talks.

Via Teresa Herrin
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. 

Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Even though they say our e-mails are secure, I'm not so sure. To be honest, I rather have security than privacy anyway. What's the point of having privacy, if your life is constantly threatened. How important and secretive can an e-mail messages be anyway? Anyone can hack into an e-mail account.

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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. | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

"Remember when Mr. Obama said you could keep your policy if you liked it?" This article is making it seem like Obama's policy is pruely selfish. Which it might be, I mean it's his "baby" right? His project. And the Wall Street is being biased against Liberals saying that they don't care about the effects of Obama Care as long as the intentions are moral. TBH I don't know that much about Obama Care to say I agree with it or not. It's a complicated piece of legislature. I don't know if they're in saying that Obama Care is what the people want or not?

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.

Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

The media pays a big role into how they either want to manipulate the viewers into believeing what they believe or it easily shows what they believe. Bottom line is we choose and filter what we want to hear and how we want to hear it. 

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

The Madisonian system is flawed but with so many people with different views and interests, this is the best we got.Some Americans believe we have too much politics but that is the opposite. Because of checks and balances, there is not much politicians can do. It all ends up just being a series of compromises with different people. In my opinion, if you can't compromise, you won't get your way in politics.

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

This video shows a good example of how gerrymandering is used. By doing this, politicians are more so choosing their voters, instead of voters choosing their politicians. If so, how can we have a variability in government? By doing this, we will have the same issues with the same viewpoints in government with unfair representation and nothing will get done. They say that the house had a 15% approval rate but 90% got reelected. Maybe it isn't because of the gerrymandering, but because of the lack of knowledge that people have on their house representatives and the house representatives are incumbents. Aren't incumbents most likely to be reelected anyway?

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 Jessica Lartigue
Scoop.it!

2013 Debt Ceiling is Creating a Perfect Storm

2013 Debt Ceiling is Creating a Perfect Storm | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has drawn a red line on the debt ceiling debate, setting up a perfect storm.
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Congress ended payroll tax deductions as part of the increaing debt ceiling.They believe no cuts is not an option. If Obama attacks Syria, his project savings will become void.

 

more...
Jessica Lartigue's comment, September 25, 2013 7:59 PM
With so many things hitting us right now, this just tops it off.
Jessica Lartigue's comment, September 25, 2013 8:00 PM
We cant afford another altercation
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Obama keeps saying it is important to carry out this attack because of important national interests. But why? What interests?...

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

I agree with Senator Cruz. They're going about this the wrong way. There are other ways we can handle the Syrian crisis, but putting our military in the middle of a civil war is not it. This strike seems like it will have nothing but negative consequences.

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
Cory Booker becomes ninth African-American to serve in the Senate, replacing Frank Lautenberg.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

I am glad that there is a growing diversity of Congress. America shouldn't just be represented by old white guys. Sorry to say it like that but it is what it is.  I'm still disappointed that there have been only 5 black senators.

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
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 11/3 -- Secession Movement

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

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Creating a new state seems like a little much...I believe there are simplier ways to battle for more representation and have your beliefs and values heard than just creating a new state. If every region created a new state because their views differed from the others in  their state, we'd have 100's of states and too much representation.

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.
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
Although a newcomer, he is rapidly becoming the model for GOP politicians throughout the state.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Ted Cruz is either really liked or really disliked. According to the article, Cruz is extremelty disliked by the u.s. Senate but extremely popular in 'Texas.I like that Ted Cruz takes risks and I feel like he will use his stand against Obama Care to increase his popularity since ObamaCare is so unpopular right now. I find it interesting that they claim Texas is becoming more purple.Why is it that most of our  big cites are vote democrat but we still come out as a red state?

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it

Peter Baker talks about his book, “Days of Fire: Bush and Cheney in the White House.” He calls the relationship between the duo, “one that drifted apart.”


Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Days of Fire is about the relationship between Bush and Cheney in the White house. The book discusses the many factors of why Bush and Cheney grew apart. One reason was 9/11 and the war. In the video, it was noted that by the end of the presidency, they were clashing resulting in a proper but distant relationship. Peter Baker also kept bringing up the "cartoonish view of Bush throughout the years." It seems like people don't give Bush enough credit. He took risks and he did the best he could do in his circumstances especially since we had never had anything like 9/11 happen to us before.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 7:14 PM

The video explains how Cheney was influential in Bush's decision-making, but less and less was he influential towards the end of Bush's 2nd term. This discussion was very interesting to watch as it painted Dick Cheney in another light, other than being the lackey to the younger Bush. Without Cheney's participation and adcive, Bush wouldn't have lasted the White House for past one term.

 

Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 10, 2013 11:11 PM

This video discusses the relationship between Bush in cheney and how it was not all as it seems and in their new book, Days of Fire, you can see that. All though they had their differences and grew distant they came together when needed. I think it was a nice video and good to hear a little behind the scenes of the truth of their relationship and how it wasnt all good.

 

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 6:28 PM

 This video is about bush and chaney while they where in the white house. It outlines the breaking and falling apart of their relationship and how bush really didn't have any power and chaney was the one really making the decisions, like a "puppet master". I think that their relationship as friends and as colleges was strained due to the media, the policy agenda and the war in Iraq.

Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Jim DeMint lists all the cons to Obama Care such as the lowing of the quality of our health care and how expensive Obama Care is (A QUARTER TRILLON DOLLARS EXPENSIVE). I find it ironic that the goal of the Heritage Foundation is "to protect the American people from the harmful effects" of Obama Care which is trying to help the American people with health care. I still don't know how I feel about Obama Care. Do the pros outweigh the cons or vice versa?

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

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

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

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 


Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

A smaill group of members in the republican caucas refuse to come up with a resolution to the government shutdown unless Obama Care is defunded. Before you label them as selfish and inconsiderate to the people and their needs, by doing this they are looking out for the American people and they have some very valid points. In some of their quotes they say, the american people DO NOT support Obama Care (which a lot of us don't), Obama Care would make health care worse, we have survived 17 government shutdowns but Obama Care would give us longterm negative consequences, Obama Care will bankrupt hardworking Americans each day, and so on. Although I agree with them, a government shutdown longterm negatively affect us too.

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 Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
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 | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | 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
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Andrew Ross Sorkin is basically talking about the consequences of going pass the october 17th deadline. If we pass this deadline, that means American cannot borrow money anymore. And borrowing money in the future would result in spending more money on higher interest rates. More importantly, going pass this deadline means that the American taxpayers will suffer. The treasurer department will have very few and very bad choices to make. Either give the tax payers the benefits they deserve such as social security checks or pay the people we owe such as the Chinese to prevent us from falling more into debt. If it does come down to this two decisions, I'm split. Although it is important to pay our debts, it is also important to remain consistent with the benefits to our tax payers.

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.

Scooped by Jessica Lartigue
Scoop.it!

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life

10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
10 ways a government shutdown would affect your daily life.
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

If the different parties don't come up with a solution to how the US should pay it's bills, the government will shut down october 1st.Shutdowns are costly and the last ones we're 1.4 billion. It will affect our lives in a negative. Such as with our money and our safety.

more...
Jessica Lartigue's comment, September 25, 2013 7:54 PM
This is scary, especially with oct.1st just around the corner. This will be a huge setback for us since our economy is finally looking better.
Rescooped by Jessica Lartigue from AP Government -- Watch or Read by Due Date
Scoop.it!

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

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

Via Teresa Herrin
Jessica Lartigue's insight:

Okay so yeah they went a little far by stating the U.S. military is helping Al Queda, but that still doesn't give us a reason to intervene. Leaning towards Ted Cruz...

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.

Scooped by Jessica Lartigue
Scoop.it!

Crazy: Government Tries To Take 1/2 Of Farmer’s Raisin Crop | Weasel Zippers

Crazy: Government Tries To Take 1/2 Of Farmer’s Raisin Crop | Weasel Zippers | JessicaLartigueBHSGOPO | Scoop.it
RT @WAGNERGIRLE: HANDS OFF OUR FOOD! RT @gbmegafan: Crazy: Government Tries To Take 1/2 Of Farmer’s Raisin Crop http://t.co/O3D1uRmZIl #tcot
more...
No comment yet.