The Presidential Run got very heated during the first Republican Presidential Debate, which was on Thursday August 6th, 2015 in Cleveland, Ohio. There were 17 Republican candidates that participated in the debate; which included Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush and of course Donald Trump. The debate had a record of 24 million viewers. The main opposing targets of the debate include President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
It can definitely be said that Donald Trump dominated the debate. Trump has pushed the party further away from the opposition in the issue of immigration. The Republican Party as stunned when Trump brought up “every mention of illegal, deportations and walls being built”, according to an article by CNN. Trump stirred up the debate, but it is for the worst for the Republican Party, because he “may have hurt himself or helped himself, no one really knows because he defies all the traditional rules of politics.” Trump will not learn to change his tone and approach to please the audience on both sides of the viewpoints in America. To please both sides, he should learn to watch the offensive phrases that he addresses to the audience.
2016 Republican Presidential Candidates
While Donald Trump stole the spotlight with his very vocal opinions on immigration reform, Senator Marco Rubio ended the debate as a leader in the Presidential run. Senator Marco Rubio gives his life story depicting the American Dream. His authentic life story included him born as a son of two immigrant parents, one a bartender and on a maid. He was raised up from nothing and became a Senator and now a Presidential Candidate. The most memorable line that Senator Rubio gave was, “Who is Hillary Clinton to lecture me about living paycheck to paycheck … who is Hillary Clinton to lecture me about repaying students loans?” This line was very appealing to the majority of the audience, who in a similar case have to work for their money, unlike Hillary Clinton who does not relate to the average American. After the debate concluded, there are now front runners and candidates that did not progress well and actually declined. The Presidential race will continue and candidates will drop and it is very exciting to see what the race will entail.
The Senate will vote on Monday August 3rd to determine whether or not the government will continue to fund the program of Planned Parenthood. This decision comes with the fast outbreak of the videos provided of Planned Parenthood providing fetal tissue to researchers. The Senate is a Republican run Senate, but there are limitations of the funding if the program will continue. According to an article by Fox News, states that their “effort appears to be another step in the effort by pro-choice groups and others to ban abortions and put an end to Planned Parenthood.” Planned Parenthood is a very controversial organization that provides health services, including abortions and family planning throughout the United States. The article also positions, “the millions that go to Planned Parenthood given instead to community health centers across the country that provide similar services with the exception of abortions.” This raises the question of whether or not Planned Parenthood should continue with their inhumane services that they provide.
Anyone who wants to seek out an abortion should seek counseling and not go to the organization of Planned Parenthood. After the releasing of the videos of Planned Parenthood selling unborn baby parts to researchers, started a debate whether the organization should be continued. The videos sparked an uproar of the treatment of the fetuses. One side of the argument believes that it is right for the abortions to occur to defend the rights of the mother, while the other position believes that abortions should be prohibited to protect the rights of the unborn child. The debate over the Planned Parenthood program will be a continuing debate and both sides will have differing opinions.
On Thursday July 23rd, 2015, in Lafayette, Louisiana there was yet again another horrific mass shooting. Similar to the shooting in Aurora, Colorado, it took place in a movie theater. The shooter is named John Houser. According to CNN, “John Russell “Rusty” Houser methodically shot 11 people in a Lafayette, Louisiana, movie theater using a handgun he legally purchased from an Alabama pawn shop.” The shooter started shooting during the comedy movie “Trainwreck” and he fired off 10 round-clip. Houser then reloaded his gun, returned to the movie theater and then he shot another three round. According to the Officer Craft, the officer who is the lead law enforcement of the case, stated, “Out of 20 rounds he shot 11 people, but some people suffered multiple wounds” and does on to say that, “one person was shot four times.” The authorities did state that the gunman had a mental problem, which causes a debate over gun control.
Lafayette Theater Shooting
In the days and weeks following such a horrible massacre, the topics of gun control and background checks while purchasing guns will be the highlight of the news. One side of gun control argument will state that they need a background check in order for them to buy a gun. But those opposing gun control will suggests that since the gunman did legally buy the gun, a gun control law is not be necessary. Also, background checks will be addressed, even though the gunman did have a background check. After such a horrible event, people start talking about these reforms. But once nothing has been accomplished we tend to forget, until another event occurs. In order to stop these events to transpire, we must be proactive and come up with a solution for this gun rights debate.
In January of 2015, California passed a law that would allow illegal immigrants in the United States to get a driver’s license. In an article by the New York Times, they state, “more than half of all new driver’s licenses issued in California this year have gone to people who are in the country illegally.” The passing of this law raises a debatable issue about immigration reform in our country. The side of the argument that agrees with this law argues that giving to licenses regardless of citizenship should be allowed to insure that the roads will be safer. While the opposition of this argument expresses that people who come to the country shouldn’t be rewarded with a license.
The two sides of the argument use different schemes of persuading their audience to believe their argument. The side supporting illegal immigration has their argument in to give equal opportunities to those less fortunate, so giving them a license would be acceptable in their cause. On the other side of the argument, the people opposing illegal immigration thinks of those who are already living in the United States. Different viewpoints of this argument have different ways of expressing this issue. The persuasion techniques are vastly differtnet, but they please the audience they are targeting.
The underlying issue to this topic is the national security of our country. Since we are rewarding the illegal immigrants with a license, we are expressing that we agree with those people coming into our country. I do not agree with the law that was passed in California, because an act such as illegal immigration does not need to be rewarded with a license. It is saying that we will welcome more immigrants and we are perfectly fine with this. In order to assure that we won’t be getting illegal immigrants is stop giving out “freebies” and make them work for rights that we as a country provide. The topic of immigration will always be an issue in our country, and we need to instill laws to stop illegal immigration instead of encouraging it.
The aftershock of billionaire Donald Trump running for President of the United States, caused many of his opponents to slander his campaign. While he was announcing he was running for President, he made some comments about illegal Mexican immigrants, where his opponents did not take these remarks very well. During the announcing of his candidacy he states, “What can be simpler or more accurately stated? The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc.” After Trump made this statement, his opponents slandered his viewpoints and the uproar after this was immense and he lost a lot of support following this announcement. Trump’s arguments made the citizens of the United States either defend him or go against what Trump was expressing.
On Saturday July 11th, Trump made a speech in the Southwestern city of Phoenix, Arizona. While delivering this speech, Trump discusses the issues of international trade, national security, foreign policy and of course, illegal immigration. According to an article by USA Today, Trump states that he respects Mexico as a country, but the problem that we have as a country lies in the hands of our leaders. Which is where they are beating us at the border. “Trump said that as president he would charge Mexico $100,000 for every undocumented immigrant who crossed the border. After the speech, he told reporters, without elaborating, that he believes ‘without question’ that Mexican officials are complicit in sending undesirable immigrants to this country.” The statement that Trump made will cause another uproar with his opponents.
Donald Trump in Phoenix, Arizona
After Donald Trump delivered this speech on Saturday, I can assure you that there will uproar with the comments that he states. Many of his opponents believe that he is not being “politically correct.” In the nation that we live in today, everything someone says has to be “politically correct.” Why do we have to be “politically correct” if we are just stating our opinions on key issues that are facing our nation? We as a nation should be willing to accept a presidential candidate that is not afraid to speak their mind. Which is why I’m excited to see Donald Trump and the different arguments that will be presented in the upcoming 2016 Presidential debates.
After the Mother Emanuel AME Church massacre that happened in the southern city of Charleston, South Carolina, there has been a massive dispute on whether or not the Confederate Flag should remain on the State House grounds in Columbia, South Carolina. In an article written by The New York Times, the State Senate has decided to remove the flag. The flag represents a symbol of hatred toward African Americans during the Civil War. The flag was seen again during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. It was used in a strategic way in the 1960s, because it reminded people of the hatred that went on during that time. The flag represented a great deal of dislike toward African Americans and it still does today. Many of the people agree that the removal of the flag signifies that the flag is “a symbol revered by many white Southerners but regarded by many blacks as an offensive vestige of segregation and oppression.” On the other hand, some civilians oppose the removal of the Confederate Flag.
The Confederate battle flag flies on the grounds of the South Carolina State House. Credit Travis Dove for The New York Times
Many people who disagree with the removal of Confederate Flag have a valid argument as well. Those civilians don’t understand why people would want to remove the symbol of hatred. Another article by The New York Times states, “To remove the flag from the State House grounds and thinking it would change history would be like removing a tattoo from the corpse of a loved one and thinking that would change the loved one’s obituary.” They continue to affirm that the removal of the Confederate Flag would not change history, so after such a horrible massacre, why would they take immediate action to remove the flag? Both sides of the argument have valid points, but the deciding factor is what an individual ultimately believes while the flag is a continuous issue that people will argue about in years to come as well.