WHY IS THE U.S GOVERNMENT PICK AND CHOOSE WHEN IT COME TO OTHER COUNTRIES CONFLICT?

After the United States won the Cold War against the Soviet Union during the 1940 throughout 1990s, it took the wheel and drives the world to it political correction, where it want the rest of the world to participate in it. We have seen many invasion that our government had done, and continue to do so as part of controlling the world, show off our military power, and gaining some economic interest. At the beginning of this month the Dalai Lama visited the United State, and spoke in many universities. I happened to follow most of his speech, and begin to think a lot about his country Tibet, and what action the U.S government has taken or where they stand now toward the Tibet, and Chine issue. The conflict between the People Republic of China and Tibet, is kind of the general knowledge, but for those who don't know, I will give a little background history. Tibet was an independent country until 1949, when the communist government under Mao Zedong invited it as a part of China. During the invention the U.S government was against the communist government, so it supported the Tibetans' believes of being free from the communist. But somehow in the blue, the relationship between People Republic of China, and the U.S grew stronger, and now the voice of Tibetans citizens of wanting their freedom of religion participation, and to be independent from China is stronger, but there is not any The U.S government has take. Do you thing the reason is because we will lose relationship with China? or is because the land of Tibet has nothing we can get from it?

Presidential Elections and people

         As many people know, the presidential election coming in 2016 has already brought out rumors of who will run. Many people believe Hillary Clinton will run again. She ran against president Obama in 2008 and lost. Around campus there are groups that support her and want her to run. The reason why the key word is rumors is because Clinton has not said she will officially run. If Hillary ran in 2016 she would have a good chance of winning. About 82% of democrats want her to run and 52% of independent voters want her to run for 2016. The election will be a mystery for all of America because Obama cannot run again and no matter what there will be a new president for 2017.
        The presidential election will show as does almost any other election how people will vote as to the red or the blue and by these results one can look at why. What would be the main views that differ from each candidate that would make a person vote from one person to the other. Looking at a comparison from Romney and Obama views, Obama wanted the troops out of Iraq while Romney wanted the troops to stay in Iraq. Ironically enough, Obama promised to take them out in 2009, 2012, and 2013. Some say he wants them stay there, but is telling the people what they want to hear until his term is over. This is just one of the main differences in views told to the public. The one big similarity from the same website was "Obamacare" verses "Romneycare". They are the same type of healthcare act yet these two are on two different sides of the chart. Even though Obama and Romney have very similar views, Obama still won the 2012 election. This is very well a sign that people are too worried which part the candidates are affiliated to whether than who truly is the better candidate.
    

Blog Schedule

Please be sure to post on or before Thursday on the week assigned!

Week of March 3
Skylar

Week of March 10
Brendan
Skylar

Week of March 17
Al
Gene
Carol

Week of March 31
Petro
Gary
Brendan
Grace

Week of April 7
Petro
Gary
Al

Week of April 14
Robert
Gene
Carol

Week of April 21
JJ
Angelica
Robert

Week of April 28
JJ
Angelica
Grace

President Obama and the Russian Forces

         The past few weeks, much of the United States has been looking at the Ukraine and their overthrow of their president and creating a new government. We also see Russian president; Vladimir Putin trying to put the Russian military in the Ukraine because of its "illegitimate government".  As the previous Link shows, Putin has deployed over 16,000 troops to the Crimean Peninsula which is where much of this is taking place. Russia is worried that because the Ukraine is right on their border and once part of Russia that this "falling under European Influence" a white house official stated. There is also a Crimean referendum which would join the Crimean Peninsula with Russia.
     President Obama on the other hand stands with the fact that the Crimean referendum is currently violating International Law and saying that "we are passed the days of being able to redraw country lines by government power". President Obama makes the logical point about "Vladimir Putin's rationale for his incursion into Crimea was not "fooling anybody" and that Russian "meddling" in Ukraine would isolate Moscow". In this situation, President Obama is a very Effective president in not only the United State's sake, but in the independence of the Ukraine government. There is now a point where using Germany as a mediator, Putin can take out many of his troops from the Ukraine and still not lose the authority. 

Welcome to our Presidency Class Blog for Spring 2014!

 Welcome to our Presidency class blog! The first step for class members is to set up an account with Blogger.com so I can add you to this blog so you can get started posting! Look for an email from me, if you do not receive one, let me know. I will send a sign up sheet around and publish the posting schedule.


(I took this photo when then Senator Obama spoke to us here at PSU).



A few rules to follow:

1. No profanity or obscenities! This Blog will maintain professional standards of discourse!

2. No jerks.

3. No incivility. You are expected to treat one another with respect and offer constructive comments.

4. follow all rules about fair use of material--copyrights etc.

5. You are expected to post a story on or before Thursday of the week assigned below.

Now--get blogging!

Wall Street Regulation a Major Concern in this Election

JPMorgan makes Wall Street regulation a campaign issue again: Article By Ashley Killough, CNN

Daniel Cimon - Blog

Wall Street Regulation a Major Concern in this Election

                  With the election battle setting its stage with President Obama and republican candidate Mitt Romney at the center, the major issues at debate are starting to present themselves. One of these issues is Wall Street regulation. Americans are furious over the recent ‘bailout’ of Wall Street. The debate between the republicans and democrats on the way Wall Street should be regulated has been roaring since 2008 when the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 aka the Bailout, was passed. One thing is clear; this issue will be on the minds of the American public come election time.

                  One issue is going to be where the candidates stand on the ‘Bailout Bill’. Obama as a senator voted to pass the 2008 act. The Democrats will call for even stricter regulation and “tout the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the passage of the 2010 financial reform bill, both of which occurred under Obama's presidency.” While Romney will highlight the continuing struggles of the economy and Wall Street as an example of failed policy due to Obama’s administration.

                  Another issue Americans will focus on is where the candidates are getting their election funds. They will want to know who is going to fight for them or whom is being sponsored and (in the publics eyes) therefor working for the firms on Wall Street. This year so far, Obama’s campaign has raised $7.8 million from the financial sector compared to Mitt Romney’s 15.8. This may be strategy by the Obama administration so that he can claim to be less influenced and entangled in Wall Street than his competition, although in the 2008 election he raised a historic $15.8 million dollars in this sector. Many will accredit Romney’s success in fundraising in this aspect to his time as a Wall Street capitalist.

                  Although Romney is seen as an insider in Wall Street and many will view him as part of the problem, he must (in my opinion) use this to his advantage. He must make it clear that there is no one better to fix the problems of Wall Street then someone whom was part of it, and knows its workings well. Obama will have great success at exposing Romney’s background in Wall Street and trying to connect him to the reason Wall Street needed a bailout in the first place.

                  Wall Street will be a major topic in the upcoming election and could make or break the candidates. Both candidates have history with the topic and will have to defend their positions and previous actions. Whichever candidate can convince the public that they are the right choice to deal with the Wall Street problem will have a great advantage in the election. 

Full Article Found Here

Republican Rule By Fear

CNN - Fear fueling Republican extremism - Article By: David Frum

Republican Rule By Fear - Daniel Cimon

            In a CNN article by David Frum, he reviews a new claim by Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein that to be blatant “The Republicans are the problem”.  Now personally as a democrat, I’ve been saying this for years! But what gives this claim merit is Mann and Ornstein’s reputation. They have studied congress for over 40 years and have built a reputation for their “non- ideological independence”. These are some of the most veteran congressional watchers whom are know for their objectivity saying that the Republican extremism is the root of much of the congressional problems we face today.

            In the article they argue: "The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.” This extremism and distance from the mainstream makes efficient politics almost impossible. Constructive and progressive policies are almost impossible to reach because compromise cannot be achieved because of the GOP’s lack of respecting the legitimacy of its opposition. For example when George Bush proposed his nominations in 2002, by Memorial Day only 13 waited for approval. But for Obama’s administration there were 108 waiting for approval. This was due to the GOP’s refusal to accept the legitimacy of the Democratic Presidency, and their stall tactics. This kind of action does not belong in politics.

            According to the article The GOP feeds off the fear of the elderly that in today's economy, any enhanced social programs will greatly hurt the support that they receive through programs like Medicare. They are also supported by the wealthy whom have an inherent fear of tax increase. The use of this fear has built a strong base for the GOP motivated by fear, which is a very powerful motivator.

            The article basically has said what I’ve been thinking for years, except these people saying it actually gives it some legitimacy. It raises some questions, like how can we change socially so that the base of the GOP becomes more sympathetic and understanding of the plight of poverty and lack of employment that faces many Americans today? Why does the democratic party not become more aggressive in calling out of the GOP’s fear tactics? One thing I know, is that it was nice for me(personally) to see this coming from an official voice rather than in my own thoughts. 

Full Article Found Here