What is the true role of the president, and do you believe this is overplayed or underplayed by the media today? How is the role similar and different from the monarchy governmental system of britain or a dictatorship in other regions?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
How much is too much?
How much is too much? How far is too far? Do the current Federal Financing Laws create a more capitalistic government? Have they crossed the line? I believe the answer is yes, plain and simple. First of all, money plays too large of a role in politics I believe. Even though Mitt Romney and Barack Obama certainly don't their $1.3 Billion or however much out of their own pocket, but you certainly have no change to run if you are even middle class or lower, probably even in the "rich" category. Let's say there's a guy living on a corn farm somewhere in Kansas, happy as can be, but he's smart, he has great ideas to run this country, he has great ideas for the nation, because of his corn business he can balance a budget, he has the qualifications. Just one problem, he's poor. He lives in a small farm house and makes $30,000 a year but he's content because he has his family, his farm, and the great outdoors. Ok, let's say that an agricultural PAC or something like that thinks "gee, this guy is really smart, he's organized, he does what he says he will, he has great ideas, I want to support him." Even with the maximum amount they may ask for it still won't him in the door. Secondly, why should there be a limit? If people or a company desire to give more money, why should that stop them? One may argue that would be unfair, but hey it's already unfair! An Finally, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing that we are going to a more capitalistic government, that I'm perfectly fine with, but the intentions made about the financing laws I believe may have worked better 100 or even 50 years ago, when economy was different. Now days economy is all over the chart, money is everything. I believe that money essentially equals speech. Taking away that option is essentially taking away their voice, their speech. If a company wishes to vocalize their idea but are limited, that is a hindering their first amendment in a way I believe. Money is huge, perhaps too huge, and unfortunately in politics, it often is the deciding factor.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Media
After the watching the Election Night media coverage and the Newstainment media coverage, what are the differences between the two? (Consider purpose, delivery and intended outcome)
Ok, I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but even I know that debate equals opinion, which equals NON-concrete evidence and arguments. While watching the Election Night media coverage from 1960 with JFK vs. Richard Nixon all the way to the Obama McCain of 2008, I noticed that generally the facts, statistics, and projections based on those facts and statistics were dominant throughout the entire program. Typically you had two people sitting and chatting with interviews with other reporters or reliable sources. Generally speaking, they talked about the background of the candidates, the votes, where the votes were coming from, the statistics, the objective results. Most of what they said on Election night was fact or projection based on fact. While watching Bill O'Relly, the Ed show and programs like that, I saw lots of debate, lots of opinion, very little actual fact. It was mostly the ideas and conceptions and opinions of several people all shouting at each other to get their idea across, often delivered in a more comical way rather than dry and monotone like a lot of the Election night announcers. Newstainment reporters tend to be charismatic, energetic, very dramatic and their purpose I believe isn't to relay the facts, but to show their spins on the issues and how the candidates are presenting those issues.
Ok, I love a good debate as much as the next guy, but even I know that debate equals opinion, which equals NON-concrete evidence and arguments. While watching the Election Night media coverage from 1960 with JFK vs. Richard Nixon all the way to the Obama McCain of 2008, I noticed that generally the facts, statistics, and projections based on those facts and statistics were dominant throughout the entire program. Typically you had two people sitting and chatting with interviews with other reporters or reliable sources. Generally speaking, they talked about the background of the candidates, the votes, where the votes were coming from, the statistics, the objective results. Most of what they said on Election night was fact or projection based on fact. While watching Bill O'Relly, the Ed show and programs like that, I saw lots of debate, lots of opinion, very little actual fact. It was mostly the ideas and conceptions and opinions of several people all shouting at each other to get their idea across, often delivered in a more comical way rather than dry and monotone like a lot of the Election night announcers. Newstainment reporters tend to be charismatic, energetic, very dramatic and their purpose I believe isn't to relay the facts, but to show their spins on the issues and how the candidates are presenting those issues.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Running with Romney
I believe that the most important traits Romney should look for are whether the candidate will enhance his status in the eye of the public, whether he or she will appeal to young people, the future of America, and as much as I absolutely hate to admit, I truly believe that the attractiveness of the person adds as well. Romney does not seem like a very charismatic person especially compared to Barack Obama so I truly believe that he should look for someone who can get the people excited and bring some charm to the election in his favor, also the young people, the future, those that may be their first time voting, or the first time in the job force, the backbone of America’s future, I believe he should consider greatly because these are people that are most likely going to be affected directly, and finally America is a very vain country, they go a lot by visual, and I hate to admit it but I have always felt that American goes by the sight too much, even while deciding a position of office.
After closely reviewing all of the potential candidates, I honestly feel that the best option for Romney, is the young, 40-year old Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Here you have a young, energetic, intelligent, highly respected young man. He appeals to the ultra-conservative Tea Party voters and the Latinos as well. Romney instantly has a rock-star kind of Vice President, you have a well-loved guy, he will add pizazz to the campaign, the kind that I don’t believe that Romney will ever have, and plus he will appeal to the Latino culture and the young people which I feel will help his campaign very much. On the flip side, I’m not saying he is a bad choice at all, I just don’t think he’s the right one, and that’s Bob McDonnell. Romney already has issues with his “gender gap” and with the apparent “ultrasound issue” that McDonnell, the Virgina governor dealt with, would probably already take Romney out of the women’s favor, which is about half of the voters right there. He doesn’t seem to add to Romney’s character, and I don’t believe that he will compliment Romney’s campaign well at all.
After closely reviewing all of the potential candidates, I honestly feel that the best option for Romney, is the young, 40-year old Florida Senator Marco Rubio. Here you have a young, energetic, intelligent, highly respected young man. He appeals to the ultra-conservative Tea Party voters and the Latinos as well. Romney instantly has a rock-star kind of Vice President, you have a well-loved guy, he will add pizazz to the campaign, the kind that I don’t believe that Romney will ever have, and plus he will appeal to the Latino culture and the young people which I feel will help his campaign very much. On the flip side, I’m not saying he is a bad choice at all, I just don’t think he’s the right one, and that’s Bob McDonnell. Romney already has issues with his “gender gap” and with the apparent “ultrasound issue” that McDonnell, the Virgina governor dealt with, would probably already take Romney out of the women’s favor, which is about half of the voters right there. He doesn’t seem to add to Romney’s character, and I don’t believe that he will compliment Romney’s campaign well at all.
Bob McDonnell: http://www.bobmcdonnell.com/
Friday, May 4, 2012
Electoral College
Today, Electoral College I believe is actually set up rather well. I believe that it is set up in a way that the larger states get more say because they have more people. If it was set up like the US Senate, then that wouldn't be fair. Also, It is run by the majority, just a majority, not two-thirds, or three-fourths or something. And lastly, Electoral College is educated representatives that understand politics and what is going on rather than people from the local districts that are pulled at random like a jury duty. However, I also believe that there could be even more accurate and true representations. In addition, it appears that only the very wealthy, the top 1% have even a shot at the presidency. What if there was the next Abraham Lincoln or better sitting in a corn field in Medicine Hat, North Dakota or halfway to Timbuktu living a comfortable but simplistic rural lifestyle, but he has better ideas, he knows business because of his crops, and relations because of his excellent customer service? What about people like that? Should we really shun even middle class people from running because of costs? This is how I believe we should elect the president.
I believe the election should be like the stock market. Here is how it works, anybody that wants to be president stands on the market, there could be hundreds of thousands even. They post all their ideas on a website and people can search based on what they want to know. Social issues, Health Care, foreign affairs, industry, environmental concerns, and have their biography with education, experience, religion, etc. Each profile stands on the market. People then click "like" or "dislike" as if it was a youtube video. (They can vote as many as they want) At the end of the voting period, they take all the people and take their likes and subtract their dislikes and that becomes their score. Campaigning is not allowed except for what they put on their profile. People don't pay extra to get their names higher on the list, it is all in a database and people can scroll through and search by any category they like. The person at the end of the voting period with the highest score is our new president, assuming he meets all the legal responsibilities. I believe that this is better because literally every person's vote counts but they also can say whom they dislike, also it gives opportunities for everyone to run if they choose and everyone has equal opportunities, and there are more options, if there are only two options then you many not like either but feel obligated to vote for someone. This method is cheap, you can do it from the comforts of your own home, people may argue that not everyone has a computer, true, but not everyone has a way to get to a voting booth, and there are no lines, and if you are impartial, you just don't say anything. But this way you can speak out if you dislike someone also rather than just like.
I believe the election should be like the stock market. Here is how it works, anybody that wants to be president stands on the market, there could be hundreds of thousands even. They post all their ideas on a website and people can search based on what they want to know. Social issues, Health Care, foreign affairs, industry, environmental concerns, and have their biography with education, experience, religion, etc. Each profile stands on the market. People then click "like" or "dislike" as if it was a youtube video. (They can vote as many as they want) At the end of the voting period, they take all the people and take their likes and subtract their dislikes and that becomes their score. Campaigning is not allowed except for what they put on their profile. People don't pay extra to get their names higher on the list, it is all in a database and people can scroll through and search by any category they like. The person at the end of the voting period with the highest score is our new president, assuming he meets all the legal responsibilities. I believe that this is better because literally every person's vote counts but they also can say whom they dislike, also it gives opportunities for everyone to run if they choose and everyone has equal opportunities, and there are more options, if there are only two options then you many not like either but feel obligated to vote for someone. This method is cheap, you can do it from the comforts of your own home, people may argue that not everyone has a computer, true, but not everyone has a way to get to a voting booth, and there are no lines, and if you are impartial, you just don't say anything. But this way you can speak out if you dislike someone also rather than just like.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)