$758 Billion Dollar Defense Bill Passes With Flying Colors in Senate

Link to Article


On Tuesday, December 10th, the Senate voted to pass a bipartisan $758 billion defense policy bill. The 86-8 vote passed with flying colors and is one of the most expensive military measures in United States history. Some new measures in the bill are a 3% increase in pay for troops and authorization for Trump's Space Force, a new sixth branch of the American military. The bill also included Democratic priorities, such as 12 week paid paternal leave for civilian employees. The bill was then sent to President Trump, who signed it, causing the bill to go into effect.

The new measure also includes opposition to projects from foreign governments including Russia, Turkey, and China. For instance, one measure includes sanctions to resist construction of the Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which purpose is to reduce reliance on Ukraine to deliver gas to Europe. Another measure would prevent Turkey from obtaining American F-35 fighter jets. Foreign Minister of Turkey, Mevlut Cavusoglu has threatened sanctions to the United States in response. In action against China, the bill prohibits the commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, from removing the Chinese company Huawei from a entity-list, which bans American corporations from contributing to foreign companies that are deemed potential security threats, which Huawei was put on for concerns of them spying on Americans via their devices.

Democrats had extensive efforts to include provisions meant to limit the president's power, especially on military matters. For instance, after failure to include many of these provisions, they attempted to restrict powers relating to declaring war and relocating military construction fund to pay for the wall on the southern border. These provisions were eventually dropped after much opposition from Republicans.

The bill has a significant to foreign policy as many of the sanctions provided could lead to worse relationships with these governments and more sanctions against the United States in response. It also has a large impact on the budget, as $758 billion is a lot of money that would lead to further debt and could be used in other areas. Senator Sanders also reflected this grievance, stating “call me a radical, but maybe before funding a new space force, we should make sure no American goes bankrupt because of a medical bill or dies because they can’t afford to go to a doctor on time.”

1. Is $758 billion dollars for a defense policy bill too much? Is spending on the Space Force just a total waste of money? Can it be spent in more important areas or be used to alleviate debt? 

2. Are the sanctions provided on Turkey and other foreign governments beneficial? Would sanctions on the United States in response make them overall harmful in the long run? Should the United States even be involved in these foreign affairs?

3. Were Democrat's efforts to impose provisions on the president's power in violation of any defined presidential powers in the Constitution? Should Republicans have compromised on some of these provisions?

Ambassador Sondland confirms quid pro quo in house testimony

link to article

In a crucial testimony for house democrats, Gordon Sondland gave new key points to aid the impeachment hearings. With a somewhat confusing account of Trump's actions, Sondland was able to confirm that military aid was withheld from Ukraine in order to find more information on the Bidens.

While Trump had told Sondland that he wanted "no quid pro quo," Sondland's response to when asked about it was "yes," there was quid pro quo.

Sondland continued to touch up on the points the president made in their phone calls, where Trump was attempting to dodge conversations about aid. Sondland also cleared up that when he was first aware of the events that had occurred, he lobbied for a better explanation of the delay.

Arguably the most crucial statement made by Sondland came when he said that "everyone was in the loop" and "it was no secret." Sondland's statement helps highlight the corruption in the Trump organization and White House. Schiff and other house democrats will use Sondland's testimony to help push impeachment and conviction hearings. 

1. Even if Trump is impeached, what further information is needed to convict him in the Republican Senate?

2. What impact will Sondland's statement that "everyone [was] in the loop" on Trump's associates if he is convicted?

3. Most of the time Trump attacks those who give testimony against him, however in this case he told reporters that he "[didn't] know him very well," does that give any validity to Sondland's statements?

Sworn in President Jeanine Añez Put In a Tough Position of Power

Link to Article

Former Second Vice President of the Bolivian Senate Jeanine Añez was sworn in as new president of Bolivia as of last week after the resignation and exile of Evo Morales along with other Bolivian politicians ultimately striving to "unite the country and restore it to the path" saying to reporters. So far according to critics she has done the complete opposite.

Recently, this past Thursday as a way to restore order to the country Añez "issued a presidential decree exempting the military from criminal prosecution." The next day coca farmers were protesting against the government in the city of Cochabamba where police opened fire on many protesters resulting in several injuries and 9 deaths. 



Unlike former president Evo Morales, Añez is Catholic and she has made it a priority to have Catholicism as part of the government by "swearing in her ministers in front of a large Bible and making speeches shadowed by an aide carrying a cross." For the majority of Bolivia the main religion is Christianity however, Catholicism within politics is often associated with the conservative governments that were notorious for treating the indigenous population like second class citizens. This transition creates discomfort for the rather large indigenous population in Bolivia based on the history of Catholic based governments as well as how the constitution of Bolivia is classified as secular. 

Since being sworn in she has altered foreign policy by appointing a new foreign minister, Karen Longaric and has immediately cut ties with the alliances of former president Evo Morales such as President Maduro of Venezuela and Cuba. Recently deporting hundreds of Cuban doctors working in the country ultimately breaking off any socialist alliances with Bolivia. 


Some questions:
1) If Añez's goal is to unify the country, is breaking off all the alliances that are affiliated with Evo Morales aligned in the best interests of Bolivia?

2) How will Añez's Catholic backed government overall affect the prominent indigenous population of Bolivia overtime?

3) Will Añez be successful in creating a transparent election process? Why or why not?

The Supreme Court may side with President Trump in the  canceling of DACA.

Link to the article

In September, 2017 Homeland security Elaine Duke, announce the cancellation of DACA for one sole reason; "that the policy was unlawful and unconstitutional". Since then their have been fear in the Dreamers in what would be their future. This Tuesday the Supreme Court held hearings and was set to get a final verdict in the end of June 2020, in the heat of the 2020 elections. 

Conservative say that the president had all legal right in canceling the DACA program. However, the democrats and the lover courts sated that the decision of ending DACA was "arbitrary and capricious". The battle still stand in whether that President administration followed the requirement in giving a reason of "changes on the sound reasoning that is explained to the public".


Due, to President Trump already leaving his mark in the Supreme Court, the chances of winning is minimal. It is 4 v 5 in the position in the Supreme Court, in where the republicans party have the majority.  Chief Justice John Roberts is the key vote in the final decision. He voted against President Trump in his effort in adding a citizen question in the 2020 census. Even if the court rule in the favor in calcining the DACA, Trump said that he would still negotiate with democrats. Although, he would ask for  fund to his wall.

If the ruling would to favor Trump administration, it would hinder the 700,000 people in DACA, with out a place to in america. But, if a Democrat win the presidential election, the new president could reverse ruling in reenactment of the program.


Can the public appose the ruling of the Supreme Court for it to be reconsidered?

Who is the most likely to win in the supreme court decision?

Do you think that the democrats would need to cave in to President Trump demands to at least give another status to the dreamers? Or would they need to run on a democratic president to win the 2020 election to reverse the decision?


If the Dreamers win, what other tactics do you think President Trump would do to get his funds in building his wall?

Are Firearm Companies Liable for the Aftermath of Shootings?

Are Firearm Companies Liable for the Aftermath of Shootings?

Link to article

The Supreme Court will decide by the rule of four whether to grant a writ of certiorari for the families of the Sandy Hook victims against the manufacturers of Remington Firearms. The families of the Sandy Hook victims are hoping that the Supreme Court will hear their case, and find gun companies liable for shootings based on how they market their product. 

The Protection of Lawful Commerce passed in 2005 protects gun manufacturers from being liable from crimes that involve their products. The families claim that Remington was advertising to disturbed young men. They also claim they used the military and incited violence in their advertising for one of their rifles.

                             

This is ruling can have a huge impact on the firearms industry and second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case they can reverse one of the gun industries biggest wins in legislation. Also the NRA has said that the law will make the firearm industry disappear. 

If the Supreme Court decides to hear the case it can be very controversial with the court, and the outcome can have a very big impact on second amendment rights. If the Supreme Court rules that firearm manufacturers are liable for shootings it will become very difficult for firearm companies to sell their products. Also it will set precedent for further cases that can eventually cause the firearm industry to run out of business. 

1. What would be the benefits to having firearm manufacturers be liable for the aftermath of shootings?

2. Would it be successful to restrict marketing techniques of firearm manufactures in order to prevent mass shootings?

3. Would Trump be considered more of a success with the right if the Supreme Court heard the case and decided to not rule in favor of the Sandy Hook families?

Supreme Court blocks 2020 census citizenship question for now, handing Trump administration a major defeat

Link to Article

The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump administration's plan to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census Thursday, giving opponents new hope of defeating it.

The ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts questioned the rationale for the administration's effort, just as challenging states and immigrant rights groups have done.

In a complex decision with several dissents and concurrences, the court's four liberal justices said they would have struck down the citizenship question outright, while the court's four other conservative justices said it should have been upheld.

The court's decision doesn't end the dispute. A separate challenge to the administration's motive for asking the citizenship question remains alive in another federal district court. That inquiry could drag on for much of the summer, jeopardizing the timetable for printing the census questionnaire.

Opponents contended that adding the question was an effort to scare non-citizens into avoiding the census. That in turn would require expanding largely Democratic congressional districts, potentially reducing their overall number. It could cost California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Arizona seats in Congress. 

Though it had appeared during oral argument that all the court's conservative justices were on the administration's side, Roberts proved the deciding vote.

The lower court judges – all named by President Barack Obama – described acts of subterfuge and misleading statements intended to obscure the real reasons for asking the citizenship question.

1. What are arguments made for the side that favors implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?

2. What are arguments made for the side that does not favor implementation of the citizenship question on the new census?

3. What past Supreme Court rulings provided the current justices with a precedent for which to help make their decision? Did they make the right decision?

Facebook adopts a Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads: Was it the right choice?

Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads

Attention has been brought to the authenticity of political ads on Facebook and raises the question of whether adopting a hands-off stance on political ads is ethical, and if not ethical, whether prohibiting free expression on social media goes against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

A little background on the issue: It started with a letter written by Facebook's employees that disparages Zuckerberg and his executives' decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted —even false ones — in ads on the site. It also urges the leaders of Facebook to reconsider their stance, positing that Facebook's position on political advertising is "a threat to what FB stands for".

"Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing", the employees wrote and claims that Facebook's current policy gives political corporations the power to "weaponize" Facebook's platform and target people who places utmost trust in content posted by political figures.

In addition to resistance from within, Facebook has also been facing criticism and condemnation from presidential elections, lawmakers and civil rights groups. This is largely due to what President Trump did a month ago. His campaign had begun circulating an ad for Facebook that makes false claims about former vice president Joeseph R. Biden Jr., who is running for president. When Biden's campaign had asked Facebook to remove the ad, the company had refused, claiming "ads from politicians were newsworthy and important for discourse"

In response to this, Zuckerberg reinforces his defense of the issue on premises of the rights given by the Constitution to American people: freedom of expression. “People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” Mr. Zuckerberg said in a 5000-word speech to students at Georgetown University.

What happens next however, is left to be seen, as every party involved in the matter stood their ground on how they believe the issue should be resolved. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat running for president, has made her position clear by buying a political ad on Facebook that falsely claimed Mr. Zuckerberg and his company supported Mr. Trump for president, challenging Zuckerberg to how far she could take it on the site. As of now, Zuckerberg has not responded in action, simply stating that Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.

This issue is significant to our current studies in class, as it not only brings light to an essential aspect of the political campaigning: the media, and raises the question of whether or not political advertising is ethical if the information presented is misleading, but also allows us to observe a real-life scenario in which freedom of expression does not necessarily have a positive effect, which could potentially instigate the creation of a bill that prohibits misleading political campaigns.

Here's my question: Should politicians be given free rein in media advertising? And would stifling and filtering political messages on the media because they are misleading be a violation of the 1st Amendment?

ISIS remains a threat after its founder's death

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/27/us/politics/isis-leader-al-baghdadi-dead.html
U.S. special operations forces killed the leader of the Islamic State militant group, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, during a raid in northwestern Syria, President Donald Trump announced Sunday morning.
However, while Baghdadi’s death marks a blow to the group, the Islamic State still poses a threat in Syria, particularly as a result of President Trump's decision to withdraw troops from northern Syria earlier this month, which opens the door for Turkey to launch an invasion against Syrian Kurdish forces -- the main U.S. allies in the fight against ISIS. Hundreds of ISIS fighters and their family members escaped detention two weeks ago during the Turkish-backed incursion against Kurdish fighters.

Trump concluded his announcement by saying "the world is a much safer place".

In 2016 alone, ISIS has claimed responsibility for several attacks around the world such as the acts of terror in Belgium, Germany, the United States. Its mission of spreading the Islamic religion have claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent people. Additionally, the group’s territorial conquest and radical religious crusade in the Middle East have led to the deaths of many innocent civilians through warfare and religious persecution. The ongoing debate about how the world should respond to the threat that ISIS poses has been diverse and controversial. However, while there is a general agreement that something must be done to address the terrorist organization, few individuals and governments have reached a consensus on what the appropriate response should be.

In deciding what action to take, the United States Government must consider any proposed action within the context of its broader Foreign Policy. Foreign policy in the Unites States has changed drastically since the nation’s founding. From the strategy set out in George Washington’s Farewell Address encouraging the avoidance of involvement in foreign affairs to the military interventionist policies of the modern day, U.S. Foreign Policy transformed from limited involvement to the investment of major national resources in foreign endeavors.

1. What is foreign policy? How would you characterize American foreign policy during the 19th century? Today? What do you think accounts for the differences?

2. What role do the three branches of government have in creating American foreign policy? What tensions sometimes arise between the branches over foreign policy? Who else influences foreign policy?

3. What principles and values have helped shape American foreign policy?

N.B.A. Faces Controversy After Pro-Hong Kong Tweet

China has asked the N.B.A to fire a team executive, Daryl Morey, after he posted a tweet in support of protesters in Hong Kong. Although the Chinese government denies this, it is clear that the tweet was taken negatively. Games were not aired in China while several Chinese companies also denounced him and cut ties with the Rockets, a popular team in China. 

The outrage wasn’t contained amongst the Chinese either. After the NBA publicly apologized about how offensive the tweet may have been to “friends and fans in China”, many American politicians and fans snapped back, accusing the NBA of submitting to China in order to preserve profits. However, Adam Silver, the league commissioner, explained that the apology was misinterpreted, and renewed his support for both Morey and free speech. As a result, China Central Television, the state-run television network, canceled its broadcasts of games between the Lakers and the Nets, along with other related events and promotions. 

Silver stands by with the ideals behind Morey’s tweet saying, “these American values, - we are an American business - travel with us wherever we go.” While he stands by Morey’s tweet in support of the Hong Kong protestors, he also expresses his support for Joe Tsai, the owner of the Nets' decision to criticize Morey and the Hong Kong protestors. 

1. What are the implications of foreign countries trying to restrict the free speech of American businesses?
2. Does China have too much influence in American businesses and politics?
3. What does it say about our own ideals of freedom of speech, if we continue to support a country that restricts that of its people.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/sports/basketball/nba-china-adam-silver.html

How Tenisons Between State and Federal Marijuana Laws Affect the Workplace

The increase in marijuana legalization has prompted the question: "how legal is it actually?" Confusion on marijuana laws is caused by the disconnect in state and federal laws. States such as California, Oregon and Colorado have legalized marijuana for recreational use, however, federal law still states that marijuana is illegal and criminalized. Essentially, this means that a California police officer cannot arrest a person for using marijuana in California, but a federal agent could.

One of the main areas where this tension between state and federal laws causes confusion is the workplace. Industries like real estate, law enforcement and employment law struggle with policymaking when it comes to marijuana usage. On one hand, most employers do not want their employees using marijuana because usage is known to decrease motivation and productivity. On the other hand, banning marijuana usage could create conflicts between employees and employers, as marijuana is legal for recreational use.

However, more and more businesses are beginning to ban marijuana use, even in fully legal states. This is most likely a result of a significant increase in recreational use: the first year marijuana was legal in Colorado, usage by employees rose 20% (naag.org). Some employees have protested by claiming that legal medical marijuana use should be tolerated. However, most courts have ruled that employers may ban medical marijuana use as well as recreational.

In conlusion, legal marijuana laws don't necessarily mean free usage.

Democratic leaders walk out of meeting with Trump following dispute

During a meeting to discuss Trump's decision to pull out of Northern Syria, Democratic leaders walked out in frustration when the meeting led to personal attacks. According to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Trump had a "meltdown" during which he called her a "third-rate politician".

The meeting was held recently following a House vote in which the House voted 354-60 to criticize Trump's decision to pull out U.S. troops from Northern Syria, making it possible for Turkey to invade. With the absence of the U.S. in the region, Russia has also been able to step in fill the power vacuum.

In response to the Turkish invasion, Trump wrote a letter to the Turkish president encouraging him to stop his invasion. In this letter Trump urged Erdogan to consider what he was doing and halt the invasion.

Later in the day, Trump tweeted out to criticize Pelosi for her conduct during the meeting, claiming that she had a "meltdown" and questioning her mental stability.


1. Given that the U.S. has already pulled out of Northern Syria, what actions should the U.S. now take to try and resolve the issue?

2. How could the meeting between Trump and the Democratic leaders have been handled differently to allow for productive discourse rather than conflict?

3. In what ways could Pelosi and Trump begin to make amends in order to prevent future conflicts such as this one?


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/democrats-angrily-walk-out-white-house-meeting-after-trump-meltdown-n1067716

Trump rolls back on Vaping following mysterious series of disease outbreaks

Trump rolls back on Vaping following mysterious disease outbreak

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/12/cdc-narrows-investigation-of-mysterious-vaping-related-lung-disease.html

Currently, the CDC and FDA have been hard at work investigating a mysterious lung disease that seems to have swept the nation by surprise. We knew for a fact that tobacco products were directly attributed to lung cancer as well as esophageal cancer however, the recent rise in teens coming down with a 'serious lung disease' as a result of vape products has been unheard of. Donald Trump recently made a promise to sweep the nation of flavored vape products.


In addition to including 380 cases under likely or certain influence by vape products, there have now been six directly linked deaths. The conditions of the lung disease resemble those of lipoid pneumonia and an oil induced pneumonia. The reports have also detailed a possible ingredient within the some vape products (vitamin E acetate) that they believe is linked in many of the cases.

Vitamin E acetate is an ingredient commonly used in skin care products. The ingredient is said to be used likely to enhance or augment the vapor clouds given off after inhaling the product. Many cases where reportedly healthy children have fallen ill have become more and more common.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/vaping-kills-four-leaves-450-19646171

The White House has currently placed the issue as a priority within their agenda. The issue has affected teens across the nation and Trump has personally made statements in regard to the recent outbreak saying "We can't allow people to get sick. And we can't have our kids be so affected." Following pressure from local governments, state officials, educators and health officials, Trump has promised to make a stand for stricter regulations on e-cigarettes and other vape products.



1.) Do you think Trump is right to decide to regulate vaping products? Why?

2.) Is regulating something, even if something is deemed dangerous, becoming more commonplace within the Republican agenda? Why?

3.) Should vaping product usage among teens be allowed? Why?

A War is Brewing Between Two U.S. Allies: Turkey and the Kurds

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/world/middleeast/turkey-attacks-syria.html

Aftermath of the Turkish assault on Ras al-Ayn, a Syrian city in Kurdish-controlled territory.

On Wednesday, October 9th, Turkey led an air and ground assault on the border of Syria and
Turkey, killing at least eight civilians in the Kurdish-controlled area. This attack came as a direct
result of President Trump giving the Turkish President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the go-ahead by
removing the American troops previously stationed on the border. According to officials, the US
has not been providing support to Turkey, however, “for the last few weeks, as Turkish military
officials planned the assault, they received American surveillance video and information from
reconnaissance aircraft” (Hubbard and Gall). 

Syrian Kurds marching for peace prior to their city being bombed by Turkish warplanes.

Turkey is a NATO ally of the United States, but the Kurds have been even closer allies over the
past four years. Starting in 2015, a US-led military coalition joined forces with a Kurdish militia
(now the Syrian Democratic Forces or SDF) to fight ISIS forces in Syria and Iraq. Many of
Trump’s own party members and usual allies have spoken out against his decision to, in effect,
abandon the Kurds after they helped the US fight ISIS. The Syrian Democratic Forces now have
shift their focus from ISIS to fighting against the Turkish threat at their border, which some
predict will allow ISIS to reemerge.

Trump has issued conflicting statements about whether he supports the Turkish assault on the
Kurds. It is reported that in a phone call with Turkish President Erdogan, Trump permitted the
operation, but after the assault happened Trump called it “a bad idea.” Americans have seen
this on almost a daily basis: our president issuing inconsistent statements and many times
flat-out lies. 

Keeping in mind that Turkey is a member of NATO, can and should the US reverse Trump’s
decision and support the Kurds who once supported us?

Trump used his power as Chief Diplomat to do something that both Democrats and Republicans
strongly opposed. Will this increase the likelihood of his impeachment in the House and
conviction in the Senate? Would it be unconstitutional for congresspeople to keep this in mind
when casting their vote for impeachment/conviction?

Donald Trump and Republican Party Struggles to Establish and Maintain Foreign Policy

Colin Powell Says Trump's Foreign Policy is 'In shambles'

Article Link: https://www.foxnews.com/media/colin-powell-trump-foreign-policy-is-in-shambles

Powell, the former Secretary of State has claimed that Donald Trump's foreign policy is failing, and that the entire Republican party needs some sort of reform in this aspect of governing. 

Claiming to be a moderate republican himself, Powell expressed his concerns for the current state of foreign policy. "The Republican Party has got to get a grip on itself," he said. 

Powell went on to explain that if he was under Trump's administration, someone would have told him,"...'Mr. President, you screwed up, so we've got to fix it and we'll put out a correction.'" It is clear that Donald Trump's foreign policy is not doing well. In addition to the errors that Trump has made, none of them are being corrected. Everyone in the commerce department has just backed up the President, and done whatever he says.

The last quote from Colin that is important and should be included is that, "...the Constitution started with, 'We the People,' not 'Me the President.'" It is clear that Colin is upset by the current state of Foreign Policy, and how selfish Trump has been with the decisions he has made. It is safe to say that he hasn't looked out for the country's best interest the way he has looked out for his best interest.

In conclusion, Donald Trump has been extremely selfish, and ineffective. If he doesn't make a change to the way he maintains our relationships and policies with other countries, he could put America in a bad position for the future. Whether it be a loss of an ally, or an excommunication by a country that makes an item essential to our economy, we could be in serious trouble. 

1) How could Trump improve the condition of US Foreign policy? 

- Keep in mind that he hasn't done much for us in this area of gov't yet, so there is ample room for improvement.

2) Why is president Trump so selfish when it comes to Foreign Policy? Is there something other  countries know or have on him that he doesn't want us American citizens to know? 

Nancy Pelosi Steps Up to the Plate- The Impeachment Process Begins

Nancy Pelosi Begins Formal Impeachment Process of Trump

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/24/us/politics/democrats-impeachment-trump.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-to-pull-troops-from-northern-syria-as-turkey-readies-offensive/2019/10/07/a965e466-e8b3-11e9-bafb-da248f8d5734_story.html

After months of holding out, Nancy Pelosi has agreed to go through with the formal impeachment process of President Trump. She announced that they would be charging Trump with, "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain" (NY Times). With a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives, the impeachment inquiry will most likely pass through the House and go to the Senate for a trial. However, the Senate has a Republican majority, which raises questions over whether the GOP will turn on Trump. As a 2/3 majority is necessary to convict the sitting President, multiple Republicans would need to vote in favor of impeachment in order to have Trump convicted and removed from office.

A whistleblower brought to light allegations that Trump had pressed the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, to investigate the Biden family. Seen as a ploy to use a foreign power for his own political gain, Trump was highly criticized for this. The Democrats felt that after this, they finally had the platform and momentum needed to begin an impeachment inquiry.

Additionally, there has been increasing anti-Trump sentiment within the GOP, especially due to his recent actions regarding the Kurds in Syria. Traditionally allies of America, the Kurds are a highly oppressed people that have experienced genocide at the hands of the Turkish people in the past. On October 7, Trump agreed to remove American troops in Northern Syria who were protecting the Kurds, essentially allowing the Turkish military to go in and slaughter them. The outcry was immediate, as both Republicans and Democrats spoke out against this decision. The Kurds, who had helped American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and with ISIS, would be left completely vulnerable without American protection. This decision by Trump greatly increased both Democratic and Republican backlash against him, and may influence the impeachment process.

This is an example of American politics related to the impeachment process of a U.S. President. The Speaker of the House must first announce the impeachment process, then various committees must investigate the offenses. If it passes a House vote, it goes to the Senate for a trial. If 2/3 of the Senate vote to convict, the President is forced to leave office. With a Republican majority in the Senate, it will be interesting to see how the process results.

1. How do you think the Senate will vote if the impeachment process gets to them? How will Republicans respond?

2. How will Trump's recent actions in Syria affect the impeachment process? Will it cause enough GOP backlash to convict him in the Senate if it gets there?

3. If Trump becomes the first president to be convicted in an impeachment inquiry, how will this reflect on American politics? How will it affect voting in the next several elections?

The homeless problem in San Francisco continues to get worse!

Link to the homeless article!

A persisting problem in San Francisco is the increasing rate of homeless people, dating back to the late 70's, attributed to the quick deindustrialization, consequently resulting in a loss of jobs, rapid increase in housing prices and the loss of social welfare programs. This issue has only gotten worse since then, leaving San Francisco streets filled with 'tent cities'. 

After a quick trip to California and New Mexico, Donald Trump told reporters that San Francisco and their rising homeless population is in violation to environmental rules as a result of the amount of needles ending up in the ocean... 

“They’re in total violation — we’re going to be giving them a notice very soon...They have to clean it up. We can’t have our cities going to hell.”

Trump detailed the effects of waste in storm sewers and needles polluting the ocean, and using the EPA as a threat to San Francisco. In response, San Francisco mayor, London Breed, said how Trump's comments were ridiculous and untrue, stating how the sewers in San Francisco are, "...one of the best and most effective in the country, that ensures that all debris that flow into storm drains are filtered out at the city’s wastewater treatment plants.". In addition, Ms. Breed included how in response to the rising homeless population, the city will be adding 1,000 shelter beds by next year, building more affordable housing and easier access to mental health and drug addiction services. 

Though Trump's accusations regarding the sewer were false, his regards to needles and the overwhelming amount in San Francisco is true. In August 2018, the Public Health Department retrieved 164,264 needles, showing the sharp increase in heroin use in the city. In addition to the needles, the amount of feces in the streets require a clean up crew, resulting in more available toilets for people. As well has the homeless population increased 17% since 2017, being at 8,011 unsheltered individuals. Although suspicion around the intent behind Trump's claim have to do with how Trump seems to be more worried about how homeless people may look to others, rather than the actual homeless people. 

1. Why do you think Trump is threatening San Francisco with the EPA, and talking devotedly about the negative impacts a rising homeless population has when he pulled the U.S out of the Paris Climate Agreement? 
• He has also made it quite clear how he doesn't really care much about the environment when looking at his lax rules on water and toxic air pollution...

John Bolton Openly Criticizes USA's N. Korea Plan

                          Bolton and Trump together


John Bolton, former National Security Advisor to President Trump, recently discussed his opinions about America's foreign policy in regards to North Korea. They were not good.

It sounds like everyday political criticism, except Bolton delivered his speech without mentioning the President's name once. The speech was Bolton's first after being fired from the adminstration over a disagreement about how to approach Iran.

While Bolton never mentioned specific actions taken by himself or staff, he criticized "American passivity", claiming that the U.S.'s lack of authoritative action was making the problem worse. He argued that North Korea's continued, short-range missle tests are as concerning as their long-range counterparts, and that if the U.S. was serious on disarming Korea, it could be done within a year. At the same time, Bolton defended Trump's abandonment of the second U.S. & N. Korea peace summit, leaving many unsure of his real opinions on the issue.

Bolton's main message was that America is not doing enough to discipline N. Korea, and that the lack of action is contributing to instability in the regions surrounding the regime. Moving forward, many are unsure of how Trump will respond to N. Korea and the comments of Mr. Bolton, which he has not yet addressed.


1. How can Trump approach the dilemma with North Korea in a way that maintains peace yet establishes America's unwillingess to negotiate?
             a. How can he appeal to Democrats vs Republicans?

2. Did Bolton (while in office) have a method for dealing with North Korea? How did he and Trump disagree?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/bolton-now-out-of-government-harshly-criticizes-trumps-north-korea-policy-11569878653

Pelosi rolls out long-awaited bill to lower prescription drug costs

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/pelosi-unveils-measure-to-lower-prescription-drug-costs/2019/09/19/e4df6f32-daf6-11e9-bfb1-849887369476_story.html

In Congress, Nancy Pelosi recently revealed her bill on drug prices which allows the federal government to negotiate prices for prescription drugs. This bill would "impose severe financial penalties" on companies that will not come to an agreement. Companies that raise their prices above the inflation rate would also be required to give that extra amount back to the U.S. Treasury. Another benefit would be the aid of senior citizens. The bill would put a limit of $2,000 a year on out-of-pocket spending. In addition, Democrats have suggested putting a maximum price on these drugs, comparing them to the prices other countries pay. However, Republicans have voiced their disapproval, talking about the extremity of the bill and how in the Senate, it was "dead on arrival." Although this bill appeals to Democrats over the issue of health care, President Trump has also shown his support for the bill.

This drug pricing bill is an example of the process a bill goes through Congress. One step includes going to the appropriate committees. The Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have issued a statement showing their opposition towards the bill. 

1.  Should the government be allowed to regulate this kind of health care or is it up to prescription drug companies?

Joe Biden Accuses Donald Trump of Abusing His Power as President

Biden: Trump abusing his power in Ukraine calls to 'smear me' and should be investigated

Joe Biden accused Donald Trump of abusing his power as President in order to investigate Biden's son, Hunter, to try to "smear" his campaign. Hunter had a lucrative role with a Ukrainian energy company and Joe Biden stated that he did not know any of his over-sea business. Trump allegedly called Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, and is being questioned whether he pressured a foreign leader into investigating him. Biden is calling for Trump to release a transcript of the phone call, saying that "depending on what the House finds", Trump could be impeached. The House committees on Foreign Affairs, Oversight, and Intelligence launched an investigation and it is up to them to determine how this will end. This article relates to the House and Congress's powers over the president and whether they think he did something wrong. The House has the power to impeach the president and Congress has the implied power to conduct investigations.



1. Do you think that Trump abused his power as President, and how do you think Congress should react?

University of Texas-Austin Promises Free Tuition For Low-Income Students In 2020

Link to article: https://www.npr.org/2019/07/10/740387601/university-of-texas-austin-promises-free-tuition-for-low-income-students-in-2020

The University of Texas-Austin has announced that it is offering full tuition scholarships to in-state undergraduates whose families make $65,000 or less each year. The school’s Board of Regents established an endowment that includes money coming from Texas’s oil and gas royalties from state-owned land. The program also expands aid to middle class students whose families earn up to $125,000 per year. This financial aid is aimed to help students from lower income families who are unable to afford to go to such institutions without entering massive amounts of debt. The school’s decision to cap the full tuition scholarship to families who make $65,000 was based on the median household income in Texas, which is $59,206. Other schools in the states of Texas, Michigan, Louisiana, and New York have launched similar successful programs. However, some states such as Oregon have attempted to provide the same kind of support for students, but have lacked the proper funding. 

College tuition is one of the exceptions to the privileges and immunities provision of the Constitution, meaning that colleges do not have to charge the same tuition for in-state and out-of-state students. College tuition and funding varies greatly from state to state due to our country’s federal system, which allows for diversity among our states. 

1. In what ways would college tuition be different for in and out-of-state students if the US had a unitary government instead of a federal system? 
2. How does the difference in the success of states like Texas versus states like Oregon in establishing programs for full-tuition scholarships highlight the pros and cons of the United States’ federal system? 
3. What does the graphic show about the importance of a college education in terms of escaping poverty? How could the different state scholarship offerings impact poverty levels in those states.
   
   
   -Livvy Platerink

Whoops! California’s carbon offsets program could extend the life of coal mines.

Link to article: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/614216/whoops-californias-carbon-offsets-program-could-extend-the-life-of-coal-mines/

California's program to curb carbon emissions could actually make it much easier to inflate the emissions reductions reported or even increase the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere. The way that the state hopes to control carbon emissions is by limiting the amount of carbon emissions that big carbon-producing businesses can have and purchasing offset credits from other small businesses (such as farmers, landowners, etc) that have altered their practices in order to be more environmentally friendly. However, these secondary businesses could easily overstate by how much they are reducing their emissions, or not switch their practices at all and still continue things like logging; since the state has no set program in place to verify this, we could end up actually increasing the negative impact to the environment.

The program also causes concern for methane emissions, as it lets polluting companies buy credit from coal companies for working toward reducing methane emissions or dealing with them in a way other than just releasing them into the atmosphere. However, this also lacks structure as it allows for mines to stay open for longer and even expand if they simply overstate the baseline amount of methane that they would release, therefore overstating the amount by which they reduced emissions as well. Similar concerns arise from the US Forest Project's protocol, which has overstated the amount of carbon reduction by 80 million tons of carbon dioxide.

This program is not the only one that has caused concern. Although the state depends on this program to vastly reduce emissions, this program, as well as ones from the UN and other international forestry programs that provide credit for emission reductions, can actually increase the amount of emissions and help polluting businesses stay in business for longer and have even more emissions because of lack of supervision.


1. In this instance, should the federal government intervene in California's program to curb carbon emissions? Or should states have the power to decide their own environmental regulations?

2. Based on the information about the graph presented above, how much will California's carbon offset program help to reduce the state's overall carbon emissions, if all goals of the program are met?

3. Overall, there is no easy solution to reducing carbon emissions. What are one or two things you could change about this carbon offset program that could potentially help California reach its goal or have the program work as intended?

-Inés Escobedo

Post Industrial Economics Pushed the White Working Class to Republicans

Please see NYTimes Opinion piece that references a Duke/Ohio State study on white working class voters

Realigning elections reflect a significant change in party platforms, ideology or a shift in demographic support for particular parties.  For example, the 1932 FDR victory created the New Deal coalition that included a large part of the white working class.  This group included many union members especially in Rust Belt states that are often pivotal in presidential elections.  As a result of President Trump's 2016 victory white working class voters have come under increasing scrutiny.  One telling statistic reflected a shift from 2010 to 2018, in which whites without a college degree grew from 50 to 59 percent of the Republican Party's voters.  This group tends to be more liberal economically, so Trump's promises to protect Medicare and Social Security also reveal the sentiment that Trump was relatively moderate compared to post 1980 national Republican candidates.  The article is quite deep with a nuanced look at white non-college graduates in the upper two income quintiles as especially committed to the Republican party.   Finally, the article attempts to contextualize the demographic changes by explaining the realignment of white voters as part of the tectonic shift from an industrial to a knowledge based economy.  In response to the economic shift, demographics that formerly fell into the New Deal Democrat coalition shifted their political focus to "2nd dimension issues of citizenship, race and social governance."  Ultimately, these trends are likely problematic for the Republicans as the changes in US demographics make white voters a smaller block.

Questions:
1.  The article discusses non-college grad whites that are in the upper two income quintiles (above $77,000).  Why would these groups be especially attracted to the Trump and the modern Republican Party?

2.  Conversely, the article identified low income white college graduates as the most loyal white constituency.  Why would this group lean heavily Democratic?

3.  The article cites numerous other scholarly works and breaks down racial attitudes as well as church attendance as an indicator of voting behavior.  What is one fact from the article that is especially relevant?

Has the Republican Party become more conservative, hmmm....?

Here is a link to a lengthly Washington Post article on the GOP Platform (dive on in)

While party platforms adopted at the conventions every four years are often lengthy, somewhat idealistic
and can be co-opted by special interests, they are the official set of principles that define a political party.
The Washington Post details the conservative shift of GOP Platforms from the 1960s up to 2012.
Not surprisingly, the watershed moment is 1980 when “The Republican Party declares war on
government overregulation.”  By 1992, the platform explains that lowering taxes on the rich will lead to
job creation and declaring an opposition to any increase in taxes.  Issues such as abortion and other
faith based topics are virtually non-existent before the 1980s. However, the GOP began to identify with
the Bible Belt religious base of voters.  In 1980, the platform called for an amendment outlawing
abortion even though the 1976 platform said abortion was a “moral and personal issue” in which
Republicans disagree. In fact, the most dramatic shift might be from 1960, when Republicans went
from supporting unions, immigrants and the positive role of government to the 1964 platform that
bashed Democrats for being federal extremists and spoke repeatedly of faith.  By 2012, the
conservative shift was evident in calls to privatize Medicare and Social Security, while it also
promotes radical ideas such as auditing the Federal Reserve and returning to the Gold Standard.
All that said, platforms represent politics and not governing. The 2012 GOP called for an
amendment to balance the budget which would be fiscally impossible considering the
2018 increase in military spending coupled with huge tax cuts.  

1. What have been the groups that have pushed the GOP to adopt more conservative policies?
2. What were the most important elections that proved to the GOP its strategy was working politically?
3. What are the most progressive elements of previous GOP platforms (see article)?