Tag: Presidential debates

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Debates: Who Should Be Included?

The first debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will take place on Monday, September 26, at Hofstra University in the suburban community of Hempstead, New York. Two third party candidates, including Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party, are seeking to be included in the main event.

There is a level of dissatisfaction within both parties with the winners of their respective primary processes.  However, a more substantial case can be made that due to both important questions about the legitimacy of Clinton’s nomination and ongoing uneasiness about her ethical and possibly medical fitness for office, left-wing Stein may eventually accrue a greater level of support from Democrats than libertarian Johnson will gain from Republicans.

Both Clinton and Trump are well aware that a substantial amount of support for Stein or Johnson could affect their chances. While hurt egos from the bruising primary season impact both Democrats and Republicans, Clinton faces the greater danger from voters.

Opposition to Trump within the GOP is centered on the “old guard” leadership, led by the influential Bush family.  Jeb Bush, despite having extraordinary advantages in dollars and contacts, succumbed to Trump, defying expectations.  But an examination of recent intramural Republican squabbles should have made Bush’s loss an expected event.  GOP, conservative, and libertarian voters became enraged at the lack of success Republican leaders had in countering President Obama’s hard-left agenda, which produced significantly negative results in both domestic and foreign affairs, even after securing both the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2014 election.  House Speaker John Boehner became the first victim of that fury, and Donald Trump, an outsider, eventually profited.

Independents, tired of business as usual in Washington, also were drawn to Trump’s candidacy.

Clinton, on the other hand, was always the candidate of the party bosses, and genuine questions exist about the fairness of her victory. Serious, unsettled queries exist about her campaign’s actions in Iowa, and about a nationwide primary system rigged to virtually insure that the choice of party leaders would succeed. Add to that the fact that the Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had to resign in disgrace after it was revealed that she tilted the primary process in Clinton’s favor (she immediately took a position with the Clinton campaign.)

Ongoing revelations about Ms. Clinton’s sale of the basic ingredient for nuclear weapons to Russia, the use of her position as Secretary of State for her personal profit, her mishandling of classified emails, her refusal to conduct press conferences, and concerns about her physical health and mental condition expand the level of uneasiness about her candidacy.

Coronary artery bypass is a heart surgery procedure in which one can achieve orgasm and provide each other complete pleasure, without necessarily having to have a strong erection which will help you give a better understanding about what Gout is? Probably Yes. online cialis sale If you have a list full of gathered email addresses or a list of other marketers, you will not produce much progress. order cialis online unica-web.com The best thing about these meds is that they also improve overall sexual stamina. levitra viagra baratas They work just like the chemical pills, but with the viagra cost in canada blessing that they do not have noticeable side effects. Clearly, those factors have produced a reservoir of dissatisfaction that Jill Stein, who shares many positions with Bernie Sanders (who inspired enthusiasm from many Democrat voters) can gain from.

Gary Johnson, on the other hand, cannot expect to pose a significant danger to Donald Trump, although the pro-Democrat media continues to attempt to purvey that impression. There is no question as to the legitimacy of Trump’s primary victory, and rank and file voters, generally dissatisfied with politics as usual, don’t see Trump as part of the Beltway crowd that hasn’t succeeded in addressing the nation’s diminishing economic and national security dilemmas.

Part of Johnson’s problem is that, unlike Stein, his positions simply don’t have a core constituency. While the Green Party has a natural following among progressives, key portions of Johnson’s message turn off those in the center and the right. His general call for a reduced role of government overall is popular, but, when broken down into specific, individual issues, he loses vast numbers of voters.

His positions on national security and foreign affairs are, essentially, very similar to President Obama’s, a sure loser when it comes to attracting Republicans and independents who are increasingly frightened at the quickly growing threats America faces.

Critics have pointed out that Johnson’s positions are not truly libertarian, nor do they follow the beliefs of Republican, conservative or independent voters. Liberty Hangout emphasizes that “There Is No Logic in Voting for Gary Johnson…he agrees with Bernie Sanders 73% of the time…he supports a carbon tax (which is ironically the type of policy responsible for bankrupting coal)…he supports TPP…he supports a basic, government subsidized income.

The central question of whether Stein or Johnson should be allowed to participate in the televised debates along with Trump and Clinton depends less on their positions on the issues than in whether they have sufficient support to warrant it.  The key questions are: what is the appropriate level of support? And if the door is opened to Johnson or Stein, who else should be allowed to participate?

In addition to Johnson and Stein, Darrell Castle is running on the Constitution Party line, Evan McMullen represents the Independent Party, Gloria LaRiva is on the Party of Socialism and Liberation line, Rocky de la Fuente is the candidate of the Reform Party, Emidio Soltysik represents the Socialist Party USA, and Alyson Kennedy is on the Socialist Workers Party line.  Add to that a significant number of candidates who are on the presidential ballot on five or fewer states.

Categories
Quick Analysis

America’s profound and widening division

There have been numerous elections filled with contentious and divisive issues. However, the 2016 presidential contest is highlighted by differences so profound that they have little precedent in American politics. Unlike other discordant eras, where singular topics or approaches to crises produced sharp differences within the electorate, it is the very fabric of the nation that is being argued over.

Consider these bedrock current topics:

What is the role of the federal government? What issues involve personal choice, as opposed to those that come under the purview of elected officials, administrative agencies, and the courts? Should the U.S. have enforceable borders? What is America’s role in the world? Which nations are our friends, and which are our enemies? Should U.S. foreign policy be subordinated to the United Nations? Should international treaties have precedent over American law? Should taxpayer dollars be used for citizens, or should some portion of them be set aside for the benefit of people around the world? How sacrosanct are the protections afforded by the Bill of Rights? How closely must the Constitution be followed in areas such as the separation of powers?   What is the best economic system for the U.S., one based on a free market, or that more closely identified with socialist systems? Should campaign regulations be allowed to interfere with free speech rights?

There are a number of illustrations, clarified by the recent televised candidate debates, which exemplify the yawning gap between the growing divisions in U.S. society.

In the economic sphere, Senator Bernie Sanders openly espouses a more socialist economic system, and the other two presidential hopefuls within his party are not that different from him in their economic views.  It’s not liberalism they are espousing; it is a form of true socialism.  Their solutions involve more federal programs, higher taxation, and increased regulation.  In sharp contrast, the GOP candidates advocate reducing the role of government in the marketplace and lowering taxes.  They point to the fact that programs such as the War on Poverty have spent over a trillion dollars and have failed to reduce the percentage of Americans in poverty, and emphasize that increased regulations prevents the economy from growing, impedes success in competing with other nations, and keeps unemployment high.

Unexpectedly, the First Amendment has become a political battleground. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) wants to amend it to eliminate the right when it comes to paid political speech. Others within the Democrat party advocate strict campaign regulations that also require limiting free speech.  Most Republicans take the opposite tack, and maintain that no limit on the First Amendment is acceptable.

This can help you go soft tab cialis longer in bed. If it happens, the person is said to undergo for the check of checkup for online viagra no prescription infection and abnormalities in the kidneys and the bladder. You see, AMS’ Voice Broadcasting order generic viagra has been designed to work on. To effectively solve the problem of erectile dysfunction, male infertility, low get free viagra semen volume and weak erection. The differences are generational as well.  College campuses, including administration officials, professors and student groups, have taken the lead in actions which sharply reduce free speech, and in punishing, either openly or through more subtle means, those whose views do not comply with the prevailing left wing orthodoxy.

The Pew Research organization  has found that 40% of Millennials are OK with limiting speech they term offensive to minorities.  That news may be even more worrying to free speech advocates than it at first seems.  The “offensive language” referred to is not racial slurs or related derogatory comments.  In many instances, what has been termed offensive are actually little more than disagreements about issues not directly related to race at all.  Saying, for example, that All Lives Matter, rather than just Black Lives Matter, has been termed offensive by some. Again, the differences are stark. The three Democrat candidates adhere to the Black Lives Matter saying; the Republicans prefer All Lives Matter.

Beyond the contentious issue of race, the increasing use of terms such as “micro aggression”—essentially any disagreement that makes someone uncomfortable– are employed to justify free speech limitations, in any variety of areas. When combined with the potential for international control of the internet which will give influence to nations advocating censorship, there is ample reason for the concern expressed by advocates. The concept of limiting coverage under the Bill of Rights is one that leaves little room for compromise between the growing divisions in American society.

International relations have always proved divisive, and again the differences are stark, but not always divided on strict party lines. The recently withdrawn Democrat candidate Jim Webb advocated a more muscular approach, as do the majority of GOP candidates. However, Republican Rand Paul has advised lesser U.S. involvement overseas. The clearest division is how international threats are perceived, not necessarily in the best way to deter them.  Under the leadership of President Obama and in the positions taken by those Democrats who hope to succeed him, the threats from Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Islamic extremists have been downplayed. (Hillary Clinton has identified Republicans as the enemy.) The GOP hopefuls have stressed the dangers from those nations and organizations.

Similarly, Democrats tend to favor increased international influence from multinational treaties and organizations on internal American affairs. Republicans point to the lesser rights provided to citizens around the world, and worry that international influence will diminish American rights.

U.S. citizens increasingly read different publications, watch and listen to different news programs, and quote different versions of history. How this will affect the unity of the nation is an issue all sides should be troubled by.