Some people disagree or agree oh how much power and regulation there should be from the United States Government. However, although I agree with banning soda today in New York for health reasons, I think that the government should let us decide what, and what not to drink. I feel that, if I want to go to the store and buy a 3 liter soda, I can. I feel it is my right as a citizen to go get diabetes, however most people in their common sense would not do this, and that is why we don't need these laws. Just because people can do it, doesn't mean they will necessarily. The only reason I agree with a sugary drink ban is because it limits capitalism by reducing the amount of soda purchased in a certain area.
In a Huffington Post article, the author summarizes the findings of a director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University. The findings of the director are that even though there are less women being represented in the political world, it isn't because of family. I guess there was this common public misconception about women having to tend to families instead of focus their time on running for president or similar things. So are women less likely to run then? The director of Women and Politics Institute states that," Women are less likely to be encouraged to run." How true this is, I don't know, but it surprised me that people considered women to tend towards family more since I have never heard of that rationale before. I really question the point of view and bias by the director because it seems as if she doesn't have any hard facts to base her findings off of. Last night's political debate was a heated one. It seemed to me to be a public roasting of each of the candidates against each other. I do think that there were some nice points that had quality information and some intro into perspectives that were politically important. However, I do believe that most of the debate was unreasonable and a waste of time. Much of the debate was focused on looks and stuff that Trump had stated earlier in his campaign. Some of the things that were said were,"If I wanted it, I would have gotten it." or, " I have never attacked him on his looks, but there is plenty of subject matter." I really didn't think that the first 45 minutes of the debate was productive and more of an insult period. This was funny, However I really did want so see some perspectives that I believe were glossed over. This political theater made everybody less credible in my opinion. Marco Rubio is a republican. he was in the GOP debate last night, and he has some very right wing views on most things, however I do agree with him on one point. Immigration. I was surprised to hear his stance on immigration because it was a very liberal, logical point of view. It was very logical because he stated that we all were immigrants at some point, and there should be processes in place to help people. The liberal view on immigration is more progressive in my point of view, however the weaknesses of his argument are that he is a right wing candidate. With this point of view, I feel he will have a disadvantage in the polls because it's so different in perspective. That being said, I did notice a lot of applause from the audience when he stated his position which was interesting to me. That is one of the points that I did agree with within immigration. |
AuthorDylan Kroes Archives
November 2015
Categories |