By: Nikko Genoese The Great Debate between College Dems and College Republicans was busy and widely marketed. Former governor of Maryland Martin O’Malley and former New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte were some of the biggest attractions for the Great Debate. Other attractions included some of the recent political firestorms taking place around the globe. The Great Debate was a place where young avid Republicans and Democrats came together to talk about “where we are and where we wanted to go” As an avid Republican, I did push the belief that we were on the right track. I have faith in the economic and foreign policy decisions that President Trump has made to an extent. I believe that his sole purpose is to get America and its citizens on the road financial prosperity and secured from foreign and domestic threats. I stood up with fellow Republicans for beliefs that the monetary and fiscal policies that he is putting in place will be different in the years under Obama for the better. We hold it to be true that when a president cuts taxes for everyone that the money generated from increased investment and consumption will out weight the deficit created by cutting taxes. Furthermore, we also believe that the decisions levied on the Keystone Pipeline and TPP were in the best interests of country. We also discussed with our collegiate counterparts that the president was meeting with leaders of every industry and was taking the steps to garner total political input in order to create the best legislation for those interests. Some of those groups include, but are not limited to the auto industry, labor unions, educational leaders, and many more. When it comes to foreign policy many Republicans believe President Trump is leading from the front with decisiveness and from a position of strength. In past years we have witnessed unpunished aggression from many countries such as Iran and China. Iran had captured and disgraced American Sailors on global television after a minute navigation error in the middle east. China also aggressed the Japanese, a U.S. ally, but annexing islands in the South China Sea with the intention of building military installations. We discussed with our Democratic class mates that was no longer the case. Both countries are now timid in committing acts of the same levels of aggression. China has since taking a reduce presence in the South China sea as tensions with N. Korea and the United States intensifies. Iran has also been less aggressive than in the Obama term and realizes that they will no longer get money in return for fake friendship. Another point of side discussion of students at the Great Debate was the military strikes ordered by Trump in the Middle East. The Republicans and Democrats alike felt that this was a strong showing of Trump’s foreign policy. The initial attack was felt to be warranted by my fellow classmates. They felt that it was the right course of action following the horrific murder of innocents by Assad. We also agreed that Syria would never be a peaceful state with a tyrannical dictator at the helm. Furthermore, we also agreed committing large amounts of troops to the battlefield in Syria would deepen economic deficits and cost would outweigh the benefit. The second strike in Syria was also widely accepted by both the college Democrats and Republicans because it served its purpose in deterring and destroying ISIS in that area. However, the Democratic students felt that it emboldened the enemy while Republican students felt in did the opposite, especially to North Korea and their allies. However, some areas where the Trump administration struck deep divides were Immigration and Domestic National Security. The left-winged students felt that it was unfair and not the American way to seclude refugees from the Middle East from our country’s security. They also felt that the Trump administration had over stepped its boundaries. They explained that he had targeted religion because he was triggered by racist beliefs that all refugees have a high chance of becoming embolden to do lone wolf acts of terror. Republican Students fiercely resisted those beliefs that Trump acted solely on his perception of the Muslim religion. Whether or not it was a small or large majority of the refugees that could potentially be lone wolf cells, the chances were too great. We also illustrated how there are many neighboring countries capable of taking on the burden and security risk. We also pointed out how lone wolf acts have become rampant in past years and recently high in European countries who took in refugees. In conclusion, we believe that all matter discussed were constructive communications between people of opposing political views. I also felt that the discussions before and afterward we much more interesting than the actual debate itself.
0 Comments
By: Matthew Eilbacher The issue of transgender bathroom rights is one of the most heated discussion points in recent memory. The controversial subject sparked widespread debate when a movement began to take hold in 2012 that advocated for the installation of gender-neutral bathrooms at universities and high schools across the nation. The supporters of this movement are great in number and largely in favor of legislation allowing individuals to use the bathroom of the gender they identify as rather than the one they were biologically born as. Such considerable discord over the issue stems from its extremely polarizing nature. There is not much middle ground between the two extremes of the argument: either you are in support of allowing transgender individuals to use the opposite-sex bathroom or you are against it.
This movement and the debate that has ensued since its conception lead to the eventual introduction of legislation that would make this practice illegal in conservative states such as Maryland, Arizona, Kentucky and Florida. These bills require that individuals use the restroom that corresponds to the biological sex they were born as, not the gender they feel they are. In response to this proposed reform, the LGBT community and its allies launched a campaign of fervent protest and opposition, claiming such laws discriminate harshly and unjustly against transgender individuals, infringing on the rights granted to them in the Constitution of the United States. The chief argument against what the opposition refer to as anti-transgender laws is the emotional harm that comes with forcing such individuals to use bathrooms of the gender they do not identify as. Doing so demands that these people either endure seriously uncomfortable situations in the opposite gender’s bathroom or use only unisex bathrooms including those in the nurse’s office or teacher’s lounge. Reports show that the latter of these options lead transgender students to miss class time (as a result of having to trek all the way to one of the school’s usually scarce unisex bathrooms) and feel as though they are different from the other students and as though they are “quarantined”. The former option does not provide any upside for transgender students either, as a study conducted by UCLA discloses that roughly 70% of those forced to use the opposite bathroom report being verbally harassed and 10% report being physically assaulted. Those who subscribe to this school of thought also contend that forcing transgender individuals to use the opposite gender’s bathrooms creates more discomfort and awkwardness for non-transgender people, as there will now be people of both male and female outward appearances in both gender’s bathrooms. Another prominent argument for the opposition of bathroom laws is that such legislation is blatant and immoral discrimination, similar to the prejudiced injustices protested in other civil rights movements such as women’s and African Americans’ right to vote. They dispute the government’s right to force all individuals—not just transgender people—to disclose such sensitive and personal information such as their biological sex before using the restroom, claiming it is in direct violation of the Constitution. On the other hand, supporters of the proposed bathroom bills base their argument in the speculated dangers of having transgender women (biological men) in the same bathrooms as biological women. This group of people fear that allowing anybody to legally use either restroom will lead to sexual predators taking advantage of these laws, increasing the prevalence of sexual assault. Additionally, some parents argue that they don’t want adult men (biologically) using the same bathroom as their young daughters. Those who oppose transgender bathroom rights cite these privacy and public safety concerns as their leading assertions. Their response to their opponents’ allegations of discrimination is simple: there is currently no federal law that criminalizes sexuality or gender identity-based discrimination. Thus, while bathroom laws may be immoral in the eyes of certain people, they are not illegal. However, it may not be long until they are indeed against the law. In 2015, the Equality Act was introduced to Congress, which would legally protect LGBT individuals by extending anti-discrimination laws to include the categories of sexuality and gender identity, as well. While this legislation has not yet been passed, it is a sign that things are moving in that direction. I truly see merits to the arguments of both sides of this debate, however, I tend to side more with the supporters of transgender rights for several reasons. The first is that I believe that the argument that gender-neutral bathrooms will lead sexual predators to take advantage of the law is baseless and a total reach. The truth to the matter is that sexual assaults will occur with the same frequency regardless of bathroom laws; a sexual predator is not going to refrain from sexually assaulting someone just because it is illegal for him or her to enter the bathroom. Additionally, in states that have already passed legislation granting transgender bathroom rights, levels of sexual assault in bathrooms has remained unchanged. Another reason I believe that a federal legalization of gender-neutral bathrooms is in order is because I can not agree on a moral level with forcing transgender individuals to use a gendered bathroom they do not identify with. It is easy to put yourself in the shoes of one of these people to understand what they are going through: simply imagine being legally required to only use the men’s bathroom if you are a woman, or vice versa. It is important to understand that transgender individuals are not “going through a phase” or pretending to be something they are not. Instead, these people truly feel as though they merely have the body of their biological sex—all other aspects of their personalities and identities belong to the opposite gender. Therefore, when viewed in this light, it is for me impossible to justify the cruel discrimination they are currently the victims of. However, many people do not feel this way, and have their own beliefs and opinions on the matter. Thus, the outlook for a compromise in the near future looks bleak; transgender bathroom rights, and rights in general, will most likely continue to be a major problem in this country for years to come. By: Jessica Saganowich The second deliberation that I attended focused on the Electoral College and the audience’s opinions of it. The group structured the talk with a variety of open ended questions asking if we felt that our vote counted and was valued. After the initial questions the deliberators broke up the audience into groups and designated a group member to moderate each group. After each approach was explained each group discussed the topic at hand for about ten to fifteen minutes. Then at the end the deliberators asked a member from each group to summarize what their group discussed or decided on. After this summarization period the deliberators asked for any final comments. The moderating skill that I would take from this deliberation would be how they dealt with silences in the audience. If the audience did not participate in one of the open ended questions, one of the group members would give their opinion on the topic. This made participating much more approachable because there was an initial topic to build off of.
In regards to the topics discussed, the group posed two options. Option one was to keep the Electoral College as it is. Then the second was to get rid of the Electoral College and create a new system. The deliberators also facilitated conversation about modifying the current system in order to improve it in a more realistic and achievable manner. In our group we discussed option one in depth. We agreed that some system is needed and that a popular vote would not be successful because some sort of representation should be present between the citizens and the elected candidates. However, we discussed options about how to modify how electoral votes were distributed. Moving into approach two our group thought that if electoral votes were based solely on population then each states vote would have a more proportional influence on the government. In addition to this delegation of votes our group discussed making it mandatory that each state have a winner take all system so the voters would be properly represented based on how the citizens voted. However, outside our group opinions in the crowd were divided, others wanted to keep the system in tact while some wanted to abolish it completely. The deliberators encouraged the conversation to continue at the end by offering additional resources to look into. This divide was probably the most inspiring part of the deliberation. It was satisfying to hear that so many people had diverse and educated opinions on this issue. It gave me hope that if this discussion continues a real and successful solution will emerge based on the high level of conversations that were deliberated. By: Anna Shamory Summarization
The deliberation,” The Electoral College: Protecting the Public or Diminishing Democracy,” centered on two main options, keep the Electoral College intact as it is or get rid of it and create a new system. The introduction to the afternoon’s discussion first mentioned what was on all our minds- the recent presidential election of Donald Trump by the Electoral College, but not the popular vote. The issue is a hot topic currently because of this, and many are calling for some sort of change to the system. Personal stakes were gaged, for example, concerns of the votes of individuals meaning little, and on the other side, concern that giving individuals too much unrestrained power can lead to problems. For option one, the discussion centered on keeping the Electoral College in tact as is, and that our top priority would be staying with the status quo. We talked about the pros of maintaining, such as that the Electoral College ensure all states are involved with selecting the President, that it guarantees certainty in the presidential election, and that our Founding Fathers placed it in our Constitution because they thought it best. Everyone in my group thought the E. C. at least needs some sort of change. We talked about how swing states gives power to those in certain states over others, and that it can elect a President the people did not majority vote for. And going to the extreme of abolishing the E. C. entirely might give too much power to uneducated masses of voters, to appoint unqualified leaders. The second option, getting rid of the E. C. and creating a new system hones in on making key improvements to the structure of it. We weighed the idea of appointing electors to districts across state borders, but realize gerrymandering can still be a problem. One person even brought up having the populous directly elect the electors, who then vote for and elect the President. An idea that electoral votes not state winner takes all was also weighed, but the tradeoff that that is basically a double popular vote then. We also thought of how difficult it would be to amend the Constitution to get rid of it, or make significant changes. And finally, as a joke we contended the Presidential nominees should just fight it out in a cage match to see who’s the next leader. Analysis/Reflection Personally, I do not feel as if I got as much out of the deliberation as I would have liked. The main issue is in my own lack of greater knowledge on the political system of the US, specifically around this issue. This deliberation topic is more on the difficult side because it requires a higher level of beforehand knowledge, but I definitely learned and understood this issue more afterwards. Additionally, I learned important knowledge of how to become a better moderator from this deliberation. Contrary to the first deliberation I attended, this one’s structure was on two options as opposed to three. I find the discussion to be more centered on each individual option at a time when it’s not just two ends of the spectrum. Two options resulted in conversation that tends to follow to a third middle ground quickly, without equal consideration to the two options. As a moderator in the future with two options I would make sure to diligently steer the conversation to the two opposites. Their format of two moderators to each group, who did not switch out for the options did not lead to as clear a distinction of when to begin discussing the second option. I learned that a clear division between approaches/options is key to get the most deliberation achieved. Finally, I observed the key issues discussed and the possible solutions weighed, depended on one’s belief that the people should have less restricted power, or stay more balanced by a system like the Electoral College. These differing, fundamental beliefs were not mentioned explicitly in discussion but both sides respectfully understood and listened to other’s opinions nonetheless. By: Adam Schultz This past Sunday I attended a deliberation focused on our presidential election system here in the United States, specifically the electoral college system. The group opened up with an introduction into the background of the electoral college system, and then asked the audience a few general questions. Some examples of questions included, do you believe in the electoral college system? If not, do you think it should be abolished completely, or amended? Do you believe there are any benefits to the electoral college system, if so what are they? I learned from this short opening how divided Americans are on this topic. Almost everyone in the room agreed that the electoral college system needs to be amended, but the ways in which people wanted to do so varied tremendously. Following this short introduction, the audience was broken down into small groups and this is where the conversation really picked up. Their first approach to this issue was to abolish the electoral college system all together, and the second approach was how to amend the current system. In my group, all but one person, including myself, agreed amending the current system was the best plan of action. We believed the electoral college system was designed to give voice to the smaller factions of Americans, such as farmers and rural living Americans; if we were to change our system to a straight national vote, many of these smaller factions would not be heard, and candidates would only campaign in cities and largely populated areas. We believed this would defeat the purpose of the presidential election, where everyone’s voice is supposed to be heard. However, the one person in our group who believed it should be abolished, argued that individuals in smaller states, as well as swing states, votes mattered more than others votes. He believed that this also defeated the purpose of our presidential election system because not every person’s vote counted equally. Before attending this deliberation, I was completely for the electoral college system, even though it had hurt my candidate of choice in past elections; Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both won the national vote, but lost the electoral college. This man’s opinion/ideas really impacted my views on the electoral college system and really got me thinking on what was the best way to change the presidential election system to make it fair for everyone. One person in our group believed that changing the electoral college system would cause too much chaos and thus nothing should be changed. Another person believed that we should take away the two senator electoral college votes from every state/district. For example, Pennsylvania has twenty electoral college votes in the current system, but in his proposed system they would only have eighteen. This in turn would make the electoral college more proportional to population and thus states like Wyoming’s votes would not count for so much more compared to a state like Texas. I thought this was interesting idea, but really defeated the purpose of the presidential election, because it would take the voice away from smaller factions. My idea, which I believed kept the voice of smaller factions intact, but made the national/general vote count for something, was a system where the electoral college could be trumped. My idea was that the electoral college system as it stands now would decide the next president of the United States, unless the candidate who lost the electoral college, won the popular vote by more than five percent of the total number of people who voted. For example, if fifty million people voted, then you would have to win the popular vote by at least two and a half million votes in order to win the presidency. Some in my group supported this idea because it created a strategic conflict for candidates. They would not only have to try to win the electoral college by campaigning in smaller states to smaller factions, but also to large urban areas in order to try to win the national vote. Following, our groups discussion we brought it back together as whole group and big ideas from each small group were expressed. Some of the ideas presented I thought were radical, such as our senators and representatives should decide the next president, since we already elected them. The deliberation ended with a brief synopsis and encouragement to keep expressing our opinions. Overall, the deliberation really opened my eyes up to the degree of different ideas regarding this topic. It made me want to convince others why my plan was the best and why theirs was not. Some other people’s ideas really worried me and I plan on attending other events and voicing my opinion to others regarding this topic.
By: Adam Schultz It has now been ninety-one days since Donald Trump was sworn in, officially taking over the duties of the president of the United States. In just his first month alone, he spent more time tweeting and golfing than he did getting updated in intelligence briefings or focusing and participating in foreign affairs. He spent nearly a quarter of his first month in office, approximately one hundred and six hours, taking trips to Mar-A-Lago, which is costing the American people nearly 3.6 million dollars per trip. Aside from constant fights with the media Trump has attempted to accomplish his “agenda”. He came to office never serving in any form of public office, and with little to no knowledge of the complex issues he would be making decisions about as the president of the United States.
With regards to action, Trump has been average in his pursuit of making America great again, but has lacked significantly on foreign affairs; he has delegated much of this work. So far he has signed a total of twenty eights bills into law, as well as issued twenty-four executive orders, twenty-two presidential memorandums, and twenty presidential proclamations. Yet, as we count the days to the all-important 100-day mark, Trump has still not signed a single major piece of legislation. Furthermore, it has been nearly one hundred days into his presidency and he still has not filled some of the major presidential appointed positions. Trumps first few months in office have given us a hint that his agenda may oppose some of America’s oldest and prestigious beliefs. Trump has attempted to ban Muslims for little reason other than their religion, multiple times in his short time in office. His latest attempt has been drawn back, and now only includes six Muslim majority countries including Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. These attempts have rightfully been met by serious out lash from the American people, as well as others in our government. It is my hope that the courts will uphold our constitution and once again overrule Trump’s travel ban. Now focus your attention to some of Trump’s biggest running points on the campaign trail; healthcare, the border wall, and tax reform. Republicans are taking another stab at repealing and replacing Obamacare. There are tentative plans in order to have the House of Representatives vote next Wednesday. However, with that being said, there is no current written legislation in order, and many are skeptical that Trump will be able to obtain the number of votes on both sides of the aisle needed for it to pass. Additionally, with the government set to shut down next week (April 28th), Trump and his fellow Republicans are trying to use discussions regarding the budget and spending to persuade democrats to support funding for the “wall.” It is estimated that Trump’s proposed wall, which was one of his biggest campaign promises, if not his biggest, would cost nearly seventy billion dollars. Finally, with regards to tax reform, Trump has failed miserably so far. To this point there has been little action in this area and Trump and his administration have yet to release a tax plan; Trump proclaimed today that they plan on releasing one next week. During Trump’s first full month of the presidency nearly 235,000 jobs were created. However, many believe that these numbers are mostly due to the previous administration’s work and that they have just carried over in the first few months of Trump’s presidency. I am indifferent on the topic and plan on waiting to see what the job market looks like in six months. Either way, jobs are being created and the American unemployment rate ticked down once again, and now sits at 4.7 percent. Trump has done a pretty good job with regards to foreign affairs, especially national security, which many argue was his weakest area when entering office. Just a few days ago he dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb on Afghanistan. The bomb, deemed a MOAB, is a thirty-foot-long, nearly twenty-two-thousand-pound bomb, with GPS guided motion, that targeted an ISIS cave and tunnel complex along with ISIS fighters in Afghanistan. The mission destroyed the complex, as well as killing ninety-two militants. However, Russia continues to be a major problem with this administration, and North Korean rhetoric is nearly at an all-time worst. Overall, Trumps first ninety-two days in office have been unsuccessful. The economy is still struggling, countries around the world are questioning are strength and power, and our allies are as unsure as they have ever been in the last few decades. Here at home, the awful rhetoric that plagued his campaign has seemed to die down, and has returned to smaller communities and populations in America. Furthermore, some of Trump’s biggest promises have been unsuccessful. He has yet to find funding for the wall that many experts believe is unwarranted and not necessary for its cost. He has no answer for Obamacare and the tax code is still just as hard to decipher. I believe that these first one hundred days will show why Trumps election was a mistake. What do you think it has shown? |
Categories
All
|