Trump Puts Pence in Charge of Creating a Coronavirus Response

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Due to the ongoing problem of the spread of coronavirus around the world, Trump has put Pence in charge of solving the problem. Although Pence does not have much experience in health policy, Trump believes that he is capable of creating a response that will stop the spread of coronavirus because of his experience as the governor of Indiana. As a former governor, Pence had to deal with healthcare in different ways, including creating his own version of medicaid expansion and handling an HIV outbreak. As the leader of the coronavirus response, he appointed Birx, a State Department official who deals with the response to HIV/AIDS, to provide research on disease and vaccines. Pence has in addition promised that under his plan, “[him and others] will continue to bring the full resources of the federal government… to see to the health and well-being and to the effective response to the coronavirus in the United States of America."

Action must be taken to stop the coronavirus outbreak, as it has already spread to a lot of countries and continues to spread even more. The number of deaths associated with coronavirus continues to rise, so it is necessary to solve the problem before it worsens and kills more people. Furthermore, this outbreak has caused the public to fear their health, so the quicker a solution is reached, the calmer the public can be. I believe that people who know a lot about healthcare should be involved in the coronavirus response, as they could help find a solution for the outbreak quicker.

1. Do you think the coronavirus outbreak will be stopped soon?

2. Was it a good idea to put Pence in charge of the coronavirus response?

3. What else can be done to prevent coronavirus from spreading?

Efforts to Establish Safe Injection Facilities in US are Halted Once Again

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

Earlier this week, a two year court battle came to a head, with a federal judge ruling in favor of the legality for a safe injection facility (SIF) to be constructed in South Philadelphia in a neighborhood which has been notoriously known as being an epicenter for drug addiction. SIF's are sites where citizens can receive medical assistance in administering injected drugs by licensed health personal. Such facilities are not a new concept, dating back as early as 1960's London, however, they have yet to officially be established in the United States. The central idea behind them is that once established, they will prevent the rate of overdoses and the transference of bloodborne diseases carried by needles due to being overseen by personal. A great explanation of such can be found here, although much of the data is admittedly ongoing and remains inconclusive.

Facilitating drug use and ensuring safe disposal may seem like a reasonable solution, however, residents of South Philadelphia did not necessarily all see it that way. Immediately following the approval for its construction, intense backlash was seen against the the facility. An outpour of anger over both social media and through active protests were seen, eventually leading the production being cancelled. Those in opposition claimed that the center would only fuel drug use in the area, normalizing it and making it easier for drug dealers to lure in potential addicts. Additionally, it may also deter addicts from rehabilitation, as they now have a legal backing to fuel their addiction. So, despite the efforts, the future for SIF's isn't looking too bright.

For me, I personally, I don't approve of such an establishment. I've had both family and friends who have dealt with drug addiction, and I just can't find any sort of attempt to recreationalize it agreeable in any way. I understand the point that it may prevent some deaths by allowing for the drug use to be administered by medical professions, but I'd argue that it also legitimizes substances in the minds of those who are not yet addicted or may potentially become addicted.

1) How do you guys feel about SIF's? Based on the data, do you think think they potentially serve a useful purpose in preventing drug related deaths?

2) Do you think SIF's will ever be officially established in the US?

3) What do you think could potentially be a better and more agreeable alternative to dealing with drug-laden areas in the United States?

Lynching To Be Made a Federal Crime

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

No, that title wasn't ripped from the mid-20th century, it's actually from this week. Last year, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Tim Scott introduced a new anti-lynching legislation to the Senate. The bill would pass unanimously, and Representative Bobby Rush would later present it to the House of Representatives, where it too would pass. It is now being finalized to be sent to the President to be officially signed into law, standing on the back of 120 years worth of past attempts. The bill has been titled the Emmett Till Antilynching Act, and is named after the infamous brutal lynching of 14 year old Emmett Till in 1955.

The effort to pass similar legislations stretches all the way back to the very beginning of the 20th century, and possesses a unique history. The first attempt was by Representative George Henry White, the only Black member of Congress at the time, who proposed for lynching to be prosecuted on a federal level. This bill would die in committee. Years later, another anti-lynching bill would pass through the House, only to be filibustered in the Senate by Southern Democrats, who claimed that it stood in opposition to state rights. Similar instances would occur over 200 times. Thus, this is largely being viewed as a symbolic victory, serving as a stand against bigotry, both historical and present.

However, the bill did not pass unanimously in Congress, with 4 representatives rejecting it, and 16 choosing not to vote at all. Among the 3 Republicans and single independent who voted against it, they have stated that they believe the bill to be the government overreaching and federalizing criminal law. An example can be seen in Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who stated "...this bill expands current federal 'hate crime' laws. A crime is a crime, and all victims deserve equal justice. Adding enhanced penalties for 'hate' tends to endanger other liberties, such as freedom of speech." The four have received heavy criticism as a result, yet continue to stand by their vote. Nonetheless, the bill has officially passed through congress, marking a historic ending to an ongoing battle which has lasted more than a century.

1) Do you believe that the bill is an example of government overreach?
2) What precedents do you think are set by the passing of this legislation?
3) What implications do you think the bill's history has on the United State's past pertaining to Civil Rights?

Coronavirus Outbreak Takes Heavy Toll on US Economy

Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Well, here we go. Considering China is the United State's biggest global trading partner, it's pretty unsurprising that the effects of the Coronavirus would bleed into the economy as well. On top of that, consumer activity has also dropped drastically due to the increasing mania. Such a decline in the economy hasn't been accounted for since the 2008 financial crisis, with numerous juggernauts like Microsoft and Apple bearing the biggest brunt of it. Essentially, the market profitability is currently in the gutter and people’s wallets are being absolutely murdered as a result. Considering the vast macro-economic instability of the country at the moment, it’s unsurprising that the government is being called upon to intervene. 

However, President Trump has recently pinned much of the economic despair upon other issues, such as Boeing’s recent production woes and the Federal Reserve’s refusal to cut interest rates. Generally, the White House seems to not yet have formed a proper fiscal response to the outbreak’s effects. As of this morning, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer have called upon the President and Congress to create a spending bill which addresses the economic effects of the coronavirus outbreak. Additionally, there has yet to be an open dialogue in Congress covering any potential spending increases or tax cuts to stimulate the economy, and overall, a solid plan does not appear to be in order or on immediate horizon. Many are also speculating the massive implications of the virus beyond just China and the United States, as if the pandemic continues to grow at an unforeseen rate, it could potentially lead to a global recession. Overall, the complete impact of the outbreak on both the US and global economy have yet to be fully realized, although many are continuing to call for action sooner rather than later.

1. How do you think the government should respond to the effects of the outbreak on the United States economy?
2. How large of a priority do you think the economy should be the outbreak? Do you think the White House is treating the issue with the appropriate amount of urgency?
3. To what degree should the government intervene with the economy to maintain stability?

Studies Show that the Colorado River is to Start Drying Up

`

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

Study

Climate change is threatening the water supply of over 40 million people that rely on the Colorado River. Scientists have observed that, as the average temperature increases - due to climate change - so does the evaporation rate of the snow caps there. To quote the science news journal, " on average, a regional temperature increase of 1.4 degrees Celsius over the last century reduced the annual amount of water flowing through the river by more than 11 percent,". Scientists even predict that as the average temperature increases by 1 degree Celsius over the next few years, the amount of water that will disappear from the river would be 5 times the amount that Las Vegas uses each year.

This news is very concerning to me, and I think that this will have many negative effects on our society in the near future. For example it would stunt crop growth and yield, create water shortages in many communities, inflate prices of water,  etc. To think that within the next few years we could lose up to 500 billion gallons of water is extremely scary to me and I honestly don't know what can be done to fix this crisis. 

1. What do you think can be done to help limit our daily water consumption?
2. How else might this lack of water affect us here in California?
3. How will this shortage of water impact communities that live in drier areas like Palm Springs or Las Vegas?

As India's economy decreases, Trump's brand is struggling

Article 1

Article 2

Annual Financial Disclosure

Video

Most of the $2 million apartments are vacant in the Trump towers, sales have slowed down, and buyers are barely visiting. Pankaj Kapoor, the managing director of Liases Foras, an Indian real estate research company, says that India’s economy is at an all-time low and that “In the past, the Trump name may have helped attract investors, but gone are those days.” However, the Trump brand is not the only thing being affected, many apartment buildings are vacant or trapped in construction delays.

According to India’s most recent annual financial disclosure for 2018, the company earned as little as $200,000 last year on all four of its projects in India. The maximum revenue reported at Trump Organization from the projects dropped from $6 million in 2017 to $2 million in 2018. 

The goal for India’s economy to prosper once again is to have Trump visit again, assure that he will help overcome the challenges of India’s property market, and a promise of investment.

1. Do you think other countries who have an economic slump will have the same effect on Trump’s business?
2. If Trump does not win this upcoming election, will his efforts worsen the economy of countries like India?
3. What do you think is the next step to help 3rd world countries?

Coronavirus in Italy spreads Fear among European Countries

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

There have been over 150 documented cases of the coronavirus in Italy, lockdown in at least 10 towns, and schools have been closed in major cities. I found it interesting that some European countries have decided to rethink their open border policy and have more “strict” security laws. 

On Sunday night, a ship brought migrants from Libya and kept them in quarantine for 2 weeks just for precaution. Most of Europe is on their tippy toes because they have opened their doors for immigrants and are now frightened. Fears of foreigners spreading the virus across oceans has already increased the likelihood that some governments around the world will impose new border or travel controls.  

Prime Minister of Italy, Giuseppe Conte, stated, “the country had taken precautions, including barring flights from China in January. These measures seemed to have paid off even if now it looks like it didn’t.” This large epidemic in Italy seems to have passed all their security because people have been taking flights from China to Italy by not declaring their original departure point and/or have not quarantined themselves during the virus’ incubation period. 

It is crazy that one of the people that died from the coronavirus had not been to china or any place reported to have the virus. Health officials are trying to figure out how he contracted the virus; he had not been to China. Many cases in Lombardy, officials say, may be traceable to that one case.

1. Do you think we will find a cure for the coronavirus?
2. What restrictions/policy changes should be put in place to ensure that the coronavirus does not spread at all or not as fast?
3. Are you scared of the coronavirus?

Russia is Helping Trump and Sanders in their Presidential Election

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

It seems strange to me that Russia also wants to help Sanders win the democratic party. But apparently, there is a plan to this. According to experts who have spent these last 3 years analyzing Vladamir Putin’s tactics, they say that he is eager for a compliant counterpart in the White House, one less likely to challenge his territorial and nuclear ambitions. Although Sanders and Trump have completely different views, they both do not have the ambition to pursue policies that will negatively affect Putin’s plan to restore Moscow’s influence in the world. 

Victoria Nuland, served both Republican and Democratic administrations, says, “Any figures that radicalize politics and do harm to center views and unity in the United States are good for Putin’s Russia.” Putin’s primary goal is to get the United States’ support to lift the sanctions that were imposed after he annexed Crimea and accelerated a war against Ukraine. The intelligence analyses suggest that supporting Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general election, Putin will be able to increase his chances to achieve his goal. Sanders wants Russia to stay out of the election. I believe that Putin is learning from his mistakes from the 2016 election and attempting to evade government agencies and technology companies from learning into their secrets to accomplish his goal.

It seems like Russian hackers are pretending to be Americans and post to increase the uncertainty of validity of American elections. This means that the bandwagon effect will be successful if people hear and follow other peoples’ opinions. As a result, Russia is not only supporting the leading candidates of both parties, but influencing the peoples’ opinions about the candidates through social media.

1. Why do you think Putin is supporting both Sanders and Trump? Why not Trump only?
2. How are Russia’s efforts different from 2016?
3. What do you think will happen as more information is uncovered about Russia’s efforts?

Joe Biden needs to win South Carolina to be safe

Article 1

Extra Source

Article 2

Article 3

Currently in the Presidential race, the county delegate count stands with Sanders at 46%, Biden at 20%, Buttigieg at 15%, Warren at 10%, Klobuchar at 5%, and Steyer at 4%. Furthermore, the world’s political attention now rests at the next candidate debate on February 25 and the next contest in South Carolina on February 29. Although it may seem Sanders is a clear winner for the democratic party by far (yay), Biden still survives. According to entrance polls, Biden won 36% of African Americans while Sanders only won 27% of their vote. Additionally, Biden won voters of 65 and older, the only age group that Sanders lost.

The next step for Biden’s candidacy is South Carolina. Biden has never trailed in any poll in South Carolina and whose majority-black primary electorate will most likely support him. However, Sanders has growing support from African Americans in South Carolina as well. It’s important to note that if Biden does win South Carolina, he will go into Super Tuesday with some delegate votes that will help him in the long run. Biden’s currently projected to win two delegates from the caucuses.

Nevertheless, there is a huge gap of ideals between older African Americans and younger African Americans, South Carolina state Rep. Kambrell Garvin, a Warren surrogate, says “Younger African Americans like Joe Biden, but a lot of us aren’t supportive of Joe Biden, because we want a change in policies. We aren’t looking to tinker around the edges.” I think Sanders should be clear about his intentions with policy changes and how they will affect African Americans.

Lasty, 33% of the total delegates (1,344) will be up for grabs on Super Tuesday alone. This means that every candidate is fighting to get a bigger lead to be one step ahead of every candidate before March 17, where almost 61% of the delegate votes will be allotted.

1. Who do you think will win South Carolina? By how much?
2. What impact do you think whoever “wins” Super Tuesday will have on the candidates?
3. Who do you believe will have most of the delegate votes by March 17th?

Bloomberg Shredded in his First Democratic Debate

Debate
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Extra Source

First off who is this Mike Bloomberg, well to state he's the man behind the Stop n' Frisk policy, and has shown consistent support for other racist policies like redlining. The former New York City mayor is currently using his immense funds to buy online advertisements on YouTube, Instagram, FaceBook, Google, and countless other platforms. From Feb. 9 to 16 he spent over 5.4 million dollars on Google ads. alone, which is about 10 times the amount his competition spent on ads. for the same platform! This year alone, “Google and Facebook have served up 2 billion Bloomberg ads, which works out to 30,000 a minute...Since joining [Bloomberg] the race in November, he has outspent all other candidates combined on Google [advertisements] by more than $10 million,”(The Washington Post). Normally using your own wealth to fund your campaign and get ahead of your competitors wouldn’t be such a point of controversy, I mean Ross Perot did exactly that when he ran for the presidency in 1992, but the problem arises when you use that money to buy your way into debates even when you don’t fit the DNC’s criteria.

The Democratic National Committee required candidates to prove their grass-roots support by earning a certain number of unique donors to qualify for a debate. But in the most recent debate, the DNC changed this rule allowing Bloomberg to participate for the first time. This was very suspicious considering how the DNC only let Bloomberg in, despite there being other candidates like Tulsi Gabbard who had already met the donation requirements but were still not invited. Well this is in fact because Bloomberg actually paid off the Democratic national Committee to let him on to the debate. During the debate all of the presidential candidates were quick to criticise Bloomberg for past sexism and scandals with women, and how he forced many to sign non-disclosure documents about incidents involving him. They also proceeded to attack him for his background of being a billionaire even comparing him to Trump. A great example of this was when Elizabeth Warren stated in the debate that the, "Democrats take a huge risk if we just substitute one arrogant billionaire for another," and Buttigieg later commenting about how, "Most Americans don't see where they fit if they've got to choose between a socialist who thinks that capitalism is the root of all evil and a billionaire who thinks that money ought to be the root of all power," (clarification: Buttigieg was referring to Sanders and Bloomberg, not Trump, I know there are too many evil billionaires running for president these days).

Personally I believe that the democratic candidates didn’t crucify Bloomberg enough during that debate, considering that he not only had connections to the late Jeffrey Epstein, but he [Bloomberg] was also one of the contacts found in Mr. Epstein's black book of names. He was also photographed socializing with Ghislaine Maxwell who was deeply involved with human trafficking and the pedophile rings that Epstein had set up. Actually I know why they didn’t mention any of this, because all of them most likely have connections and donors that were also part of this conspiracy. So I guess this little section is more food for thought, but I do encourage you all to look into this stuff because dear lord does this rabbit hole not end!

1. What are your thoughts on the DNC's actions regarding this most recent debate? Should there be any punishment for these actions, especially because of their unfair treatment of candidates?

2. Should there be any limits on candidate's personal spending on their campaign? Or should we require platforms to give each candidate a certain amount of free ads. (or airtime on TV)?

3. What do you you personally think about Bloomberg?

Trump criticizes Oscar winning film, Parasite

During a rally on Thursday, President Trump criticized the Academy Awards for
bestowing their top prize to Parasite, a South Korean movie. He asked “what the hell
was that all about” when stating that the winner was a movie from South Korea. He
even goes further to state how “we got enough problems with South Korea with trade.”

Parasite, a movie on class discrimination and greed and how it would affect relationship
between the very wealthy Park family and poor Kim family. Parasite has also made history
by becoming the first foreign language film to win Best Picture at the Oscars earlier this
month. They had also received Oscars for Best Director, in which Director Bong Joon Ho
also made history by becoming the first Korean director to win the Oscar, Best Original
Screenplay, and Best International Feature Film. Many people were thrilled at how well
Parasite did especially considering the lack of diversity in Hollywood this year. 

I personally had the chance to watch Parasite recently and I had enjoyed the movie so
much I watched it three times... in one night. I thought that it was a well directed movie
with a very interesting plot. I admired how it had made such a resonating comment on
society, the socioeconomic class status and the disparity between different classes. It was
a well made movie with amazing cinematography (in my opinion) and I think that it fully
deserved the Oscars that it earned, thus making it very disappointing that Trump would be
so quick to discredit the movie because it was a foreign film especially when it seems as if
he hadn’t even watched it since he stated himself, “Was it good? I don’t know.” Though
disappointing in the way that he acted, I’m not very surprised by it. Hopefully in the future
we will be able to see more representation and diversity in the movies being nominated,
actors, actresses, as well as directors. 

Have you watched Parasite? What did you think of it and do you think it deserved the Oscar’s it received? 
Do you think foreign media or culture is making an impact on American culture? How so?

Andrew Yang drops out of the presidential election

Article 1

Article 2

Article 3

On Tuesday, February 11th 2020 Andrew Yang had dropped out of the presidential race. Yang’s platforms mainly focused on his universal basic income policy where the government would give 1,000 a month to every American age 18 or older who wanted it. This would help people who lost their job due to automation or new careers pay for “exploring their creative side, and spend more money in the communities where they lived ''. Yang said that the cost of this plan, which many are estimated to be in the trillions would be funded by a Value Added Tax. 

Yang’s longevity of his campaign was a surprise to many Americans since he had outlasted many

sitting senators and governors. His campaign wasn’t very well known until they had announced

that they raised $9.9 million in the third quarter with another $16.5 million the following quarter. 

However, despite all this he had only gained about 1% of the raw vote from Iowa and no delegates,

thus prompting him to drop out. 

I personally wasn’t following Yang very closely until I had seen an interview done where Yang

addressed his lack of media coverage, such as a time when CNN had left off Yang in an election poll

graphic sometime in mid 2019 and another instance where he was called “John Yang” on MSNBC.

While both of these two were accidents (I believe) and not done out of intent and things likes this

can happen. The show apologized and corrected their error to which Yang accepted their apology.

Still, even though this might not be seen as important to others I still wonder if this would’ve

happened to any other candidate.  

I’m not sure if Yang continued how much support he would have or would have gathered,

but his political support had seemed to consist of mainly young and male voters and now

many people are speculating that his departure from the election could potentially help

Senator Bernie Sanders numbers. 

Additionally, as a fun fact CNN reported that they have added Yang as a political

commentator so we can expect to see more of him for the remainder of this race!

1. Do you think that Andrew Yang dropping out would help other candidates' numbers?
2. Do you think that Andrew Yang would run again for the 2024 presidential election? 
3. How much of an effect do you think media coverage has upon a candidate and their campaign?
4. Can a lack of media coverage prompt their actions in dropping out of the race?