Blog 8

In the blog Let's Talk Politics, the author argues that the government should not raise taxes on the rich to help reduce the interest on student loans. I agree with your post that the United States government should not tax the wealthy. If the United States government were to tax the wealthy, it would not bring that much money to the government. Therefore, it would not help alleviate the debt that the U.S. government has accumulated. I also agree that student loans should not be reduced by taxing the rich because there will not be enough funds to help all the students. Overall, the author effectively proves their argument that raising taxes on the rich will not decrease interest on student loans.

Blog #7

   The allowance of the death penalty has been a topic of question for over a decade. Although it is constantly put in a negative light, the death penalty is actually a beneficial aspect of the court systems.

   Convicts who receive the death penalty have a lengthy trial and appeals process in attempt to prove the fact that they are not guilty and thus, should not be sentenced to death. In some cases, this process is crucial for those who are innocent. For example, in the year of 1996, Damon Thibodeaux confessed to a rape and murder, unknowingly, and was sentenced to death. He spent many years in prison; however, after looking further into his case, he was proven innocent and freed. In comparison, if Thibodeaux was sentenced to life in prison, his case would not have been looked into as intensively; thus, decreasing the chance of him being proven innocent and released from prison. Furthermore, death sentences account for less than one percent of prison sentences, yet, the exoneration rate for them is 12%, thus demonstrating the success and exstensivity of the appeals and trial processes.

   The death penalty can also be used as a bargaining chip. Case in point, a prisoner is likely to prefer life in prison over death; this choice can cause defendants to give a confession, thus speeding up the court process. This factor clears the courts from extensive and inessential trials.

Blog 6

I agree with Kelly's blog arguing that the "U.S. government was right to terminate the insurance coverage of women's contraceptives." I concur with the point that the coverage isn't necessarily free, but rather paid for by all Americans through taxes. Thus prompting the question, why should everyone have to pay for what only some people use?

 Furthermore, I admire the analogy comparing the concept of health insurance and birth control to car insurance and gasoline. To me, the idea of healthcare and birth control went hand-in-hand with feminism. However, I believe this analogy expanded my reasoning and demonstrated how it truly isn't an issue over feminism, but simply an issue over practicality of insurance coverage. 

Overall, I think Kelly made a lot of interesting and thought-provoking points in her blog. I commend how she used statistics and analogies to argue her point, respectfully. She offered a new perspective and reasoning on the topic, thus creating a successful blog. 

Blog #5

The United States formed from the thirteen colonies which were ruled by Great Britain. After Great Britain taxed the colonies without their consent, the thirteen colonies revolted against England. They then gained independence from England and formed their own government. At first, the United States was ruled by the Articles of Confederation. The founding fathers were hesitant to give the national government too much power as they were afraid the government would become corrupt, similarly to Great Britain. Therefore, the Articles of Confederation had many problems such as Congress was unable to tax the states, each state only had one vote in Congress, and each state had to agree to amend the document. 

The failure of the Articles of Confederation lead to the creation of the Constitution which still governs our government today. The Constitution lies out the powers of both the national government and the state government. The Constitution has been successful over the years because of checks and balances. The Constitution restricts the power of the national government while ensuring no one branch of government becomes too powerful. There are three branches of government which all create checks and balances: the executive, legislative, and judiciary. The Executive branch can veto bills from Congress and appoint judges to the judiciary branch. The Legislative branch can override the President’s veto, impeach the President, and it can refuse the approval of judges to the Judicial branch. The Judicial branch can declare laws unconstitutional and can rule actions of the President unconstitutional. Through the use of checks and balances, the United States national government has been able to restrict power of the national government over the years. 

Blog #4

In the blog, Town Hall , the author scrutinizes Democrats for focusing America's agenda on Russia’s potential involvement in the 2016 Presidential election. The author uses personal testimonies to support his argument that political leaders need to be more concerned with other prominent issues in the United States which do not include Russia and its involvement with the United States. In the article, the author uses many personal testimonies to persuade political leaders that they need to focus on other issues occurring in America. The author interviews a citizen in Tennessee who “lost everything… We can’t afford healthcare… We didn’t qualify for Obamacare, we didn’t qualify for Medicaid, and we can’t afford to buy health insurance. We’re the ones that fall through the cracks” (“Rural America to Congress And the Media: We Don’t Care About Russia”, Vespa). By the citizen stating that they are unable to have insurance because they are financially unstable, it demonstrates that political leaders need to resolve problems which are occurring in the U.S. instead of being concerned about Russia. 

In addition, another citizen claims “I’m worried about job creation. I’m worried about tax cuts…We’re out here struggling and these people don’t get it” (“Rural America to Congress And the Media: We Don’t Care About Russia”, Vespa). By more than one citizen being affected by financial issues due to incompetent political leaders, it enhances the author’s argument. Therefore, more citizens are affected by political leaders focusing on the issues with Russia. The author appears to be credible by using personal testimonies. Overall, the personal testimony enhances the author’s argument by making the reader feel empathetic to the person who is being affected by the issue.  

Blog #3

In the New York Times editorial article, "Donald Trump Jr. and the Culture of Dishonesty" the author argues that Americans should distrust Trump and Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr. The author of the article is targeting all Americans and making them question if they believe Trump and his administration are trustworthy. The author formulates the argument by using rhetorical questions and an appeal to the emotions. The author uses a rhetorical question, “If a culture of dishonesty takes root in an administration, how can Americans believe anything its officials say?” (The Editorial Board, “Donald Trump Jr and the Culture of Dishonesty”) to make Americans question the validity of the Trump administration. By using a rhetorical question, it makes Americans think about their believes. Through the use of a rhetorical question, it strengths the authors argument. In addition, the author also uses an appeal to the emotions through informal diction which strengthens the author’s argument. The author claims that since Trump has been in office “Trump has compiled a record of dishonesty- ranging from casual misstatements to flat-out lies” (Editorial Board, “Donald Trump Jr and the Culture of Dishonesty”). The use of the informal words “flat out lies” makes the reader unable to justify that Trump is dishonesty. Thus, it makes the reader feel that there is no other way to justify Trump’s actions. Therefore, it makes the reader lose credibility in the Trump administration. The author appears to be credible by using logic such as rhetorical questions and an appeal to the emotions. In conclusion, the use of a rhetorical question and an appeal to the emotions the author is successful in proving his argument that the Trump administration is untrustworthy. 

Blog #2

In the Houston Chronicle  the article, "Trump: US must work with Russia, move past election issues", illustrates the speculation that Russia may have hacked into the United States 2016 Presidential election. President Trump attended a meeting on Friday with Russian President Putin. When he attended the meeting, Trump asked Putin if Russia had interfered with the U.S. elections. According to the article, Putin denied that Russia had interfered with the elections. However, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus claimed that he speculated Trump did not believe Putin. Trump apparently asked the question many times, but since Putin wouldn’t admit anything else the meeting moved forward. In addition, at the meeting Trump and Putin discussed plans to implement a Cyber Security unit which was critiqued by both Democrats and Republicans.

This article is important because it demonstrates that the U.S. is still unaware if Russia interfered with the 2016 Presidential election. Despite being unaware, the U.S. is still attempting to work with Russia in foreign affairs. Therefore, the article is allowing U.S. citizens to decide what they believe really happened between the U.S. and Russia. 

Blog #1

Hello!