Tianna Kelly AP GOPO
Follow
2 views | +0 today
Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
onto Tianna Kelly AP GOPO
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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?

more...
Jessica Lartigue's curator insight, September 11, 2013 4:00 AM

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

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 16, 2013 10:13 PM

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, 9:31 AM

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...
Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from Government and Economics
Scoop.it!

Obama's No. 1 Problem

Obama's No. 1 Problem | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
President Obama has a problem: One day he’s talking about economic inequality, the next day school reform, or immigration reform, or something else entirely.

Via Joel Leagans
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Greg McKeown argues that Obama's lack of focus on a specific a national issue is a problem in the President's mentality, and that Obama must pinpoint a specific issue to fix during 2014. I disagree with the author's stance. With so many pressing issues facing our nation, why must we decide to resolve only one? If we decide to focus on social equality, what happens to our relationships with foreign nations? If we choose to focus on improving our military, how will the economic crisis in our country be resolved? As leader of a nation, the President cannot simply choose which issues to fix and which to ignore; he must treat all issues as matters in need of resolution. Certainly, some issues take "priority" over others, as stated by McKeown, yet the goal of a president is to resolve all of the issues of his nation, or at least attempt to. Next, the author puts forth the opinion that we must choose which initiatives to reject. Surely, not everything may be achived, but shouldn't we at least try? With McKeown's proposal, millions of Americans would receive the proverbial short end of the stick when deciding which issues to tackle.

more...
Niti Desai's comment, January 30, 10:56 PM
Problems will always be present. Knowing how to make the best decisions for the country is not always easy, but the President of the US has that job and needs to fulfill it. While I agree that multiple "priorities" cannot exist, I also believe that the President has a boat load of pressure that he must handle every day. How can he decide which of the major issues are "greater?" I find it understandable that Obama wants to focus on many different problems throughout our country. Although, there are times when a true priority must be established, and that's when the art of making decisions comes into play.
Tatyana Jones's curator insight, February 12, 7:16 AM

I agree with the author, President Obama not choosing to focus on one topic but instead focusing on many could in the long run result in him not being to achieve any of his goals. When trying to do many things at once you tend to over look certain details of what you are doing, so even if he can pull off some of what he promises he would, whose to say that it'll be effective and lasting.

Stephanie Yard's comment, April 3, 6:56 AM
“There’s no way Obama, or his chief of Staff Denis McDounough, for that matter, can juggle all of these priorities successfully” suggests a valid point. Obama is trying to fix too many “problems’ when he should be honing in on a couple problems at a time. Obama is trying to fix economic inequality, education, immigration reform, etc. all at the same time. The author points out a very valid point when he states “he has to pick one and stick with it. That’s how the most effective leaders get things done”. It’s better to focus on one detail, or problem at a time and avoid distractions. When defining the “priority” it’s strange how priority is used as priority rather than priorities. It’s impossible for everything to be a priority.
Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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. 

more...
Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 20, 2013 8:16 PM

I learned that hitting the debt ceiling means that the government isn't allowed to spend more money. If the debt ceiling is raised it means higher taxes for the American people. Interest rates for the US may increase. ARS says that the US will have to spend a lot more money in order to borrow money.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 4:21 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, 9:43 AM

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

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

The Department of Justice's Marijuana Memo Is a Disappointment for Federalism

The Department of Justice's Marijuana Memo Is a Disappointment for Federalism | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
The Department of Justice had a historic opportunity to say that since the people of these states had spoken, as long as what happens in Colorado stays in Colorado, they wouldn't make a federal case out of it.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

My first statement will be that I strongly support the legalization of marijuana, nationwide, and honestly do not understand its crimilization in this country. Next, I will say that I do not understand why citizens are being given conflicting statements: first we are told that the federal government will respect the laws of the states. However, the federal government then says that marijuana sellers and userscanbe persecuted under federal law. If the federal government will not legalize the drug on a grand level, why not respect the decriminalization of it on a state level? On an even braoder not, why does our government continue to provide us, as citizens, with reason after reason to distrust and lack respect for it?

more...
Joe Smith's curator insight, April 16, 3:15 PM

The department of justice is concerned with the legalization of weed. Weed is illegal under federal law. But some states like Colorado made it legal. So there is a controversy with if they should take this situation to court or not. 

Logan Felten's curator insight, April 16, 7:28 PM

I agree, I think that individual states should make their own laws and federalism shouldn't be involved. It's a shame how federalism is involved and feels the need to be involved when states should make their own rules and laws based on what they believe and feel.

 

Mitchell Forrest Enerson's curator insight, April 16, 7:53 PM

I find it very difficult to comprehend how this whole thing is going to work out. They say that if the marijuana stays within the state where it is found to be legal then that is fine. I know that sooner than later someone will bring the marijuana out of state and get in trouble. This will cause huge controversy between states and national government. In the end the federal government will need to take care of this issue. 

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

Constitution Check: Is President Obama claiming too much war power?

Constitution Check: Is President Obama claiming too much war power? | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Constitutionally, President Obama is not stepping out of the position legally circumscribed to his position by the Founding Fathers; according to the Constitution, the President is allowed to send troops into another country for the purpose of military action, not a war, for up to 60 days without the approval of Congress. So long as any military action in Syria suggested by President Obama does not last more than the assigned two months, he is fully within his Constitutional rights as President.

more...
No comment yet.
Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
They both disdain governing the way Madison intended.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

According to this piece, both President Barack Obama and Republican Tea Party conservatives, though they may be on extremely opposite ends of the political spectrum, do have one thing in common: both parties oppose Madisonian government. Thus, this piece is critical of both. Hardlining Tea Party conservatives oppose government intervention in the lives of American citizens, particularly in respect to taxation of the rich. On theother hand, Barack Obama favors executive power and government regulation.

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 4:10 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 3:26 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, 2:02 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

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

 

Rescoop, read, include a list of those from Texas

 


Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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. 

more...
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's curator insight, October 23, 2013 7:10 PM

Texas- Randy Weber, John Carter, John Culberson( from Houston) Louie Gohmert, Randy Neugebauer, Steve Stockman

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 4:01 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, 10:17 AM

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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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. 

more...
Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 23, 2013 8:18 PM

The article explains that the public cannot widen their political horizons, because they are not being challenged. The media, the thing that most voters have the most contact with, influences people's mindset the most; however, people tend to surround themselves with sources of media that agree with their own views. In my opinion, it's a lot harder to confront your own views, than Carr puts it. You can't just expect me to not get angry hearing something that I disagree with politically, and it's an uncomfortable feeling to have your views challenged. It's easy for me to be challenged in this class, because we read so many different view-points, and we can hear what our classmates have to think, but when I am out of here, who will challenge me then? Will I push myself to be challenged or not? I doubt I will, and that's what the general public thinks as well. It would be great for their to be a truly unpartisan, popular source of media. Not just unpartisan, but one that hosts debates from both sides, so that viewers can at least be exposed to the arguments of the other side. 

 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 2:03 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 3:27 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
Although a newcomer, he is rapidly becoming the model for GOP politicians throughout the state.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Although most of Senatorial colleagues were glad to see him go, including his own party-mates, Ted Cruz was greeted by a warm welcome at his return to his home state of Texas. A radical right-winger who has recently been making a name for himself with day-long filibuster attempts and extreme support for the recent government shutdown, Cruz has been earning scorn from much of the county. However, that number apparently excludes Texas Republicans, who have made sure to show their support for the freshman Senator. Whereas I personally fundamentally disagree with Cruz's ideology, I must respect his abilities as a congressman to garner the support of multitudes, even with the scorn of many political juggernauts.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 3:14 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 5:06 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, 2:23 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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. | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
The Wall Street Journal on the liberal claim that website problems don't matter when your intentions are good.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

The Democrats' attempt at damage control here is not a good one. The hasty attempt to sweep under the rug the problems with the health care website is simply not working. Obama representatives say thr fine for not having health care is not being waived because although the website is not accessible, people can simply call the 800-number to order health care. However, many people who call this number are simply redirected back to the faulty site. The bottom line is, with a rollout as poor as this one, there is no way the public can be expected to trust or respect the new health care reform. The Obama administration simply should have done better. 

more...
Maddy Folkerts's curator insight, October 25, 2013 6:21 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.

Cameron Maher's curator insight, October 27, 2013 1:24 PM

Even though I have certain political beliefs, I do not believe in blindy defending your party, no matter the situation. I am a huge supporter of Obamacare, but the rollout has been, honestly, a complete disaster. They had 3 and a half YEARS to get this set up, and yet it still does not work. No matter how good the intentions, if the program does not work, then everyone loses. The administration needs to take responsibility for the rollout disaster, and fix it as soon as possible.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 4:47 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 Tianna Kelly from Less Government More Fun
Scoop.it!

Who's an extortionist now, Mr. President? | WashingtonExaminer.com

Who's an extortionist now, Mr. President? | WashingtonExaminer.com | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
President Obama pledged to end partisanship, but instead has exacerbated it. He recently accused House Republicans of being extortionists for opposing a raise in the debt ceiling and wanting to defund Obamacare.

Via Less Gov. More Fun.™
Tianna Kelly's insight:

President Obama is now advocating that the United States' debt ceiling be raised. This view is in direct opposition to Obama's espoused beliefs back in 2006 regarding the United States' mounting debt. The United States is already trillions of dollars in debt, a phenomenon which is already having and will continue to have detrimental effects on citizens of the country. Borrowing more would only serve to further punish U.S. citizens, as well as put off the inevitable economic collapse the country is facing. Rather than borrowing more money, the United States government, including President Obama, should focus on improving our own economy and ensuring that we are able to exist on our own, without being indebted to other countries, who may or may not have our best interests at heart.

more...
Jolie Starr's curator insight, September 25, 2013 12:17 PM

This article talks about President Obama's condescending nature. Seven years ago when he was a Senator, Obama wanted to lower the debt ceiling, and now he is arguing that we need to expand it. This author of this article even brings up the question of shutting down the government and then "re-opening it" because it is going downhill, due to condescending acts like those made by Obama. 

James Gasper's curator insight, September 25, 2013 4:57 PM

Wow...when I read this i laughed a little. I know the article is biased but i didnt really care once i read what it had to say. The articles states that when Obama was a senator and George W. Bush was president and there were talks of raising the debt ceiling, he was completely against it and said, "the fact that we have to raise the debt ceiling shows bad leadership." This excerpt is completely redundant because he switched his position around which shows his incompetence and indecisiveness. 

April Mai's curator insight, September 25, 2013 5:05 PM

It is obvious that this article is very biased. The author simply reverts back to Obama as a senator and quotes all his promises and suggestions that probably convinced the people to vote for him. Basically I see the author pointing out Obama as a leader who turned back on his words.

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Ted Cruz makes some valid points, and also some not-so-valid ones. His statement that international security is not thwe duty of the U.S is true; it is also true that by providing assistance to Syrian rebels, the United States will be aligning itself with Al Qaeda. However, Constitutionally speaking, he is not correct in saying that Commander in Chief Obama has no right to attack without the approval of Congress- the president is actually granted power to launch a 60-day military attack without Congresssional approval.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 16, 2013 9:19 PM

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 5:20 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 3:16 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

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

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

The United States should stop letting itself be guilted into acting as the world police! We are not! Trying to halt the spread of another so-called "evil" (communism) is what got us into a war in the last century. The U.S. cannot afford another war, and it is simply not our place.

more...
Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 8:49 PM

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

Joseph Rumbaut's comment, September 12, 2013 4:40 AM
Likewise, Gingrich is right to say that this foreign affair is inexplicable to the average American so if Obama was going to appeal to the average American he would have to build up to it and not just be blunt. Honestly though, after watching Obama's address, I feel like he should have mentioned diplomacy more instead of making it seem as if the only choices left were military action, military action, and military action.
Rachel Murphy's curator insight, October 2, 2013 5:13 PM

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

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

BY 10/31 -- How the NSA is infiltrating private networks

BY 10/31 -- How the NSA is infiltrating private networks | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
The NSA, working with its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), secretly taps into the internal networks of Yahoo and Google, the two biggest Internet companies by overall data traffic.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Primarily I want to say that this entire NSA fiasco, while certainlly no surprise, is completely outrageous and insulting. As a citizen, I feel completely disrespected and insulted by my government. Though the government defends its actions by saying that they are only doing what is best for us, this explanation only brings to mind an Orwellian, Big Brother-driven society. In response to the reader's comment regarding Al-Qaeda having won, I am almost tempted to agree with this statement. If our nation has become so terror-driven that citzens must live in a constant state of fear and intrusion, the terrorists have truly won. 

more...
Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 5:12 PM

This article detailed exactly how the NSA has cracked into Google's data centers. The full repercussions of this scandalous news hack does not seem to fully register to the American public. The NSA has to be stopped and will not stop unless the American voters do something about it, whether it be through protest or voting in new representatives. It violates our constitutional rights.

Adriana Cruz's comment, January 25, 12:31 PM
This article talks about how the NSA has infiltrated into the public in order to ensure safety. For example, the NSA can monitor all Google Cloud actions. It is very interesting to note that the Washington Post is willing to share this information to the public; it almost seems risky. At the same time, it makes me feel very unsafe in that the government could monitor anything that I do online.
Alex fowler's curator insight, February 3, 4:52 PM
It is illegal to have a website that the gvt cannot get into but that does not mean that the gvt should tap into google or yahoos networks through wiring and invade peoples private information. It is against the rights of American citizens.
Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

Supreme Court Gay-Marriage Primer: The Basics on Prop 8, DOMA, and What to Look For

Supreme Court Gay-Marriage Primer: The Basics on Prop 8, DOMA, and What to Look For | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
Arguments start today; get familiar.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

The bottom line is that there is no legitimate reason for the United States government to deny a group of its citizens a right given to the minority. The anit-gay marriage "argument" is so unfounded that I am wary of even calling it an argument- there isn't one! By disallowing same-sex marriage, our government is effectively letting its citizens know that this country's gays are less worthy than everyone else.

more...
Claire Burrus's curator insight, October 15, 2013 5:54 PM

The arguments against same-sex marriage have so many holes!  I hate reading articles that even mention these terrible arguments. PLEASE keep religion out of our government!  I could get into why it's not even a legitimate argument on the basis of Christianity either, but that's not even important in this context. This shouldn't even be an issue. Denying gays the right to marriage is infringing on their rights based on discrimination, and the FEDERAL government should make a law to prevent this unjust discrimination because it goes against the Bill of Rights in our Constitution.

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

USA TODAY Poll: Opposition to Syrian airstrikes surges

USA TODAY Poll: Opposition to Syrian airstrikes surges | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

This poll does not surprise me in the least; in fact, I am among the majority who oppose United States military action in Syria. The United States has its own internal issues to attend to, and spending money and resources on unnecessary actions can only further our troubles.

more...
George's curator insight, September 11, 2013 12:17 AM

It's quite interesting seeing how Obama's address is compared to other presidential addresses all dealing with a request to go to war. Obama is faced with the challenge of persuading a country that's tired of fighting wars to rise up once again to act as the world's policemen. 

John Lomax's comment, September 11, 2013 3:35 AM
I appreciate how obama has stood his ground on the syria issue. It shows that he is a strong president that wont back down just because his views are unpopular or opposed.
Cameron Maher's curator insight, September 11, 2013 12:08 PM

I respect our president and also support him on most issues but I part ways with him here. Every time we meddle in middle eastern affairs, we screw up, like Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't want to stir up even more anti-American feelings in the area.

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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".

more...
Daniel Guo's curator insight, September 11, 2013 8:29 PM

McDonough can be as outraged as he wants- I don't think that his statement disproves that an airstrike won't help extremist rebels. It doesn't matter whether or not the intention is to help Al Qaeda- as long as the US damages Assad in any way, it is indirectly helping Al Qaeda.

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 16, 2013 9:25 PM

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.

Paulina Ho's curator insight, December 19, 2013 4:35 PM

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

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/15 -- Gerrymandering: the recipe for dysfunctional government? | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

This video details the realities and details of gerrymandering. This process allows politicians to, in effect, decide who is elected into the United States legislature. Though it remains a legal process, it is unethical and unfair to constituents. It most certainly provides for a dysfunctional political system, one in which politicking is more important than the welfare of the masses.

more...
Mason Paul Lyman's curator insight, April 2, 6:41 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, 11:09 AM

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, 6:47 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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. 

more...
Tiffany Wang- AP Gov's curator insight, October 22, 2013 5:32 PM

Jim DeMint makes it clear that although the Republicans lost the shutdown, they will not give up on getting rid of Obamacare. I have mixed feelings about. While I would like to see universal healthcare, I'm not sure that the Affordable Care Act is the best way to go about it, especially after learning about how much the administration compromised with the insurance companies. I'm really not a fan of the individual mandate, however I don't think Obamacare would not be as bad for the US as DeMint makes it out to be.

Sachi Kamble's curator insight, October 23, 2013 10:59 PM

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. 

Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 2:50 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
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 | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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.

Via Teresa Herrin
Tianna Kelly's insight:

Republican congressman Rand Paul wants to introduce an amendment to the constitution making it illegal for legislation to be passed with special provisions for the lawmakers of our country. That this idea comes from a lawmaker is surprising, as Rand is potentially barring himself and his colleagues from receiving preferential treatment. It is also surprising that such a new member of Congress would introduce such a radical bill. This bill is in direct response to the recently implemented Affordable Healthcare Act, which carries specific provisions for the legislative branch. As a citizen, I like Rand Paul's idea, though I don't imagine many of his colleagues will.

more...
Melissa Aleman's curator insight, November 11, 2013 3:00 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 4:53 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, 8:54 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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

BY 10/22 or 10/23 -- Inside the Bush, Cheney relationship | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

This video depicts the shifting relationship between Former President George Bush and his vice president Dick Cheney. During the duo's first stint in office, they were close personally and in terms of political ideology. However, moving into the second term, the two drifted, a shift particularly enhanced by Bush's decisions regarding war in the middle East. This tenuous relationship meant that one was reluctant to make policy decisions for fear ir what effect they might have on the relationship. This delicate balance did not bode well for the American public under this administration. 

more...
Chris Buenaseda's curator insight, November 4, 2013 4:14 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 8:11 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 3:28 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 Tianna Kelly from Less Government More Fun
Scoop.it!

Government Shutdown: What Really Happens | B.A. Spending Daily

Government Shutdown: What Really Happens | B.A. Spending Daily | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | Scoop.it
As lawmakers contemplate passing the continuing resolution and raising the debt ceiling, and fret about a government shutdown, The Associated Press says it is worth remembering, “Social Security checks will still go out.

Via Less Gov. More Fun.™
Tianna Kelly's insight:

In the event of a government shutdown, the United States government will not actually be coming to an end. The term "shutdown" simply means that the two major political parties have been unable to come to a compromise, and are now, in essence, giving up on coming to an agreement. This type of collapse shows the rest of the world that, in spite of the legacy that the United States has worked to build over the past two centuries, the United States government is weak, and cannot take care of itself or its people.

more...
Less Gov. More Fun.™'s curator insight, September 20, 2013 2:05 PM

Giddy-up for another messy day of Obamacare -- And what really happens when the government shuts down.

Amanueleshetu's curator insight, September 24, 2013 8:28 PM

The best way in this case is for each parties to leave their egos and come to their sences.If some thing has to be done then they should do it with the given time.The parties should remember that they are there to serve the people and the obamacare helps the american people very much.passing the bill would be the right thing to do because there is many things at stake.the bills have to be paid no matter what too.

Xiupeng Chen's curator insight, September 25, 2013 7:01 AM

 There are something that I wanna say. At first I noticed all the decitions from the article are made by House of Representetive and President. Through out the article I only have one question left: are these policies including Obamacare and Clean Energy plan really worth it? Of course you can never tell in a year, or even 10 years. As I said in another scoop, I really hope these policy will finally work out. However, the last comment on this is, are we turning into European Countries now? Heavy tax and the best health care programs in the world. AMERICAN DREAM COULD BE KILLED BY FREE LUNCH.

Rescooped by Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict

Obama Tests Limits of Power in Syrian Conflict | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

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?

more...
Jessica Lartigue's curator insight, September 11, 2013 4:00 AM

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

Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 16, 2013 10:13 PM

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, 9:31 AM

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 Tianna Kelly from AP GOPO -- Must Watch or Read
Scoop.it!

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

Video: Denis McDonough: 'Outraged' at Ted Cruz's Al Qaeda comments | Tianna Kelly AP GOPO | 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
Tianna Kelly's insight:

I somewhat agree with Cruz- though his demonstration seems a litte radical, his points are still valid. If the United States provides miitary aid to Syrian rebels, we will be, essentially, helping Al Qaeda.

more...
Sammy Masri's curator insight, September 16, 2013 9:25 PM

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 6:02 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 4:35 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.