Trump Bashes Verdict of Kate Steinle Case

article
        After the verdict of the Kate Steinle case was released, Trump went on record to bash the criminal justice system as ineffective and unable to show the full facts of the case. Though the the DOJ (prosecution) had their charges dropped, they still got him on the charge of illegal possession of firearm.The details of the case are actually quite weird in the sense that the jury voted on the evidence without factoring in his previous felony history. Although legally, in this case, the prosecution could not have mentioned it to the jury, it certainly does reflect quite a bit on his violent behaviors and the fact that he was ordered for deportation 5 times allows Trump to exploit this case for his political gain.
        Although many people must also agree that the case result illustrates a failure of the judiciary system, it is not the president's place to comment on such proceedings. Innocent or not, naming new immigration laws after the victim only further politicizes her murder. It is also unfortunate as there is a clear spotlight on every immigrant (illegal or not, but especially illegal immigrants). Their actions are inevitably politicized and will be used as ways to support Trump's immigration bill. Although Zarate is not a completely innocent man, it is not our job to question the jury's examination of evidence, nor is it correct to hold his felonies against him. The POTUS questioning this case only incites a cultural division, perpetuating a distrust of immigrants.

1. It is hard not to apply this case in context of the general question but what do you think about reentry laws into the US? Should they be more stringent, or kept the same, or looser?
2. What do you think about Trump's politicization of this event? It does spread a message, but is it necessarily a good one?
3. Is it unsafe for public officials to become involved in judicial proceedings?
4. What are your thoughts on the system as a whole, does it need improvement so that less murderers walk free?

Trump and More Controversial Tweets

Article
       Trump has been well known for his infamous tweets about topics ranging from race to the FBI investigation. Recently Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to misleading the FBI in their investigation, which resulted in him being fired from national security adviser. This wouldn't be too suspicious (relative to some of his other actions), but many critics point out the phrase in which Trump essentially stated that he thought Flynn's actions were legal, causing many to think that he was aware of the process. I believe that this conviction could mean more issues for Trump's legal team to deal with. For starters, this conviction could forward the movement towards possible impeachment and certainly furthers the FBI investigation. There are many hints to collusion with Russia and as Flynn is testifying, this could truly be a challenge for Trump to talk his way out of.
        I believe that even though Trump may not be convicted, this demonstrates a lack of knowledge of law (or even choosing to ignore law). It also sets a shady precedent (or perpetuates one) that allows the POTUS or cabinet members to conduct rogue foreign policy. Either way I think that increased transparency would be ideal along with a less biased media (both sides) that can ask the tougher questions.
1. What do you think that the indictment means for the Trump administration?
2. What are your opinions on whether Trump knew?
3. How do you think Flynn's testimony would resonate with future (if any) indictments.
4. Finally, what are some steps one might take to have increased transparency in the current administration.
     

Dow Jones Continues to Soar Under Trump

https://www.thebalance.com/dow-jones-closing-history-top-highs-and-lows-since-1929-3306174

Since Trump's inauguration, Dow Jones has had record closing highs 79 times, with constant and gradual growth during the past year. Analysts say that this is partly due to Trump's pro business policies that make it easier for companies and corporations to be successful. Dow Jones is one of the most used stock indexes in the world and it includes companies like Microsoft and Coca Cola. The Dow is often used as one of the indicators as to how well the economy is doing. Seeing that the Dow has been at record highs during Trump's presidency is a sign that his policies are helping businesses. I think that Trump is on the right track on decreasing business regulations because when businesses are less restricted, they tend to be more successful because they are free to run their companies how they want to and do what they want with their profits. Trump's plan to lower the corporate tax rate is an example of how Trump wants to make his policies more business friendly. I think that Trump's economic policies are showing signs that they are doing good for the economy and the performance of the stock market during his presidency is an indication of the success of his policies.

How do you guys think Trump is doing with the economy?
Do you think that decreasing regulations on businesses is a good idea?
What do you guys think about lowering the corporate tax rate, how will that effect the economy?

Senate passes tax bill

Photo: From NPR, Senator majority leader Mitch McConnell is very happy tonight

Just a few hours ago, the Senate passed the massive tax bill. As there are numerous blog posts about the bill, it is a $1.4 trillion tax overhaul - the biggest since Ronald Reagan, with tax cuts on businesses and most of the middle class. They believe that the money lost from the tax cuts will be compensated with economic stimulus, as with more money for the middle class, they can spend more on goods and services, thus helping grow the economy. The vote passed by a narrow margin, 51-49, with only one Republican, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, that voted against it with all Democrats voting Nay.

Now, likely the Senate will have to merge its revisions and agree upon a final version with the House version of the bill, since it has differences. However, once the final version is agreed upon, both the House and the Senate will vote on it before sending it to the President, giving the Democrats one last chance to stop the bill.

For Republicans, this is a major legislative victory, as they seemed to struggle to fulfill their campaign promises in many areas, such as the stalled health care reform. Additionally, it is one of the first major promises Trump had that was enacted. Republicans had to make many last minute revisions in the end in order to appease interest groups and other Republican holdouts, kind of like in the documentary we saw in class.

What do you think this means for the Trump administration?
What is your view about this bill?
For me, I believe that while Americans will loose a lot of funding for services due to the lack of money that the federal income tax raises for the government, this bill may end up working out, considering that its goal is to provide people and businesses the ability to spend more money on goods and services, thus helping the economy more. Ultimately, this will outweigh the other costs and negatives of the bill
Lastly, what could the Democrats do, other than filibustering of course, to prevent this bill from passing?

Links:
NY Times
NPR
BBC
ABC News

Bitcoin's Meteoric Rise and Future

Article
        There are many other altcoins circulating in the market currently such as (most prominently Ether and LTC), but among these, Bitcoin (BTC) is used as a common denomination in trading these coins. We are in the common FOMO (fear of missing out phase) that has led to an increasingly bullish market for bitcoin and the volatility of bitcoin is partially due to the uncertainty of its real world applications and its ability to remain secure. Bitcoin has seen a rise to a high of over 11,000 in a very short time (from monday to friday, bitcoin has fluctuated between 8k and 11.5k) and has also caused a prevalence of new bitcoin millionaires (10-20 thousand so far I believe).
        Bitcoin, to many skeptics is now referred to as a bubble, the likes of Mark Cuban have gone public to heavily criticize the coin and its alts. Many claim that, like the dot-com bubble, the bitcoin bubble will also burst, resulting in massive losses. However, I believe that Bitcoin, although uncertain as the future of currency, certainly creates technological innovation. Even though the coin itself is volatile, blockchain technology is revolutionary. Currently the lightning network in development would allow for millions of dollars to be transferred in seconds of milliseconds as it utilizes the blockchain technology. Despite many skeptics and extreme optimists, Bitcoin has shown to push back against resistance and demonstrates value through its extreme growth. I myself am excited about the future of bitcoin and it is exciting to see many countries pondering its adoption as well.
        What do you guys think about the possible applications of blockchain technology? Do you think that companies should begin to accept bitcoin as payment and if so would that help stabilize its value? (Elon Musk has been instructed to begin accepting BTC by LTC creator I think). Would you take the risk to invest in this new technology?

Flynn Lies About Russia-America Relations During Presidential Election

Article

In a recent federal court case, former National Security Adviser for Trump, Michael J. Flynn, pleaded guilty for making fallacious statements to the FBI about two conversations with the Russian ambassador. Flynn has been cooperating with Robert S. Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating Russia's interference in the 2016 election. Trump has been continuously defending Flynn, adverting attention away from him, and now we know why. Flynn revealed that Trump and his team has multiple conversations with the Russian ambassador, Mr. Kislyak.

I think that this whole incident really reflects negatively on Trump, as it now becomes evident that he was trying to cover something up by getting the FBI officials to back off on their investigation of Flynn. While it still is not clear whether or not Russia interfered with the 2016 election, it definitely seems plausible when taking into account Trump's hidden conversations with the Russian ambassador.

What do you think? Do you think that this can be used as evidence against Trump in this case? What do you think this indicates about Trump-Russia relations?

Trump's Tax Plan Stalls in Senate

Article
        Trump's tax plan has been talked about ever since he stepped into office. However many of the proponents of his bill have met stringent resistance from members of the senate against increasing the current deficit. These "deficit hawks" as the article calls them, such as Senator Bob Corker have made their votes based on how much the deficit would increase. In this process of voting there was a customary vote of sending the bill back to the Senate Finance Committee, which was not favored by many republicans. This has led the republicans in favor of the bill to find other revenue streams in order to supplement the increases to the deficit.
        Although republicans hope that the bill would pass, many remain uncertain due to this trigger voting. This relates to what we are learning as it shows the difficulty of passing a bill that everybody is satisfied with. It illustrates the back and forth discussions and even the possibility of sending bills back to subcommittees when the bill cannot obtain a majority in the senate.

        A potential idea right now is to start at 20% and to increase corporate tax half a percent each year after 6 years. What are your thoughts on this idea and of Trump's tax plan? What are some other factors preventing this bill from being passed? And do you think that the plan may end up helping a majority or does it seem like it will only help a specific group of people?

United States Stores Drones in Niger

Article

The United States Defense Department has received permission from the government of Niger to store and fly out drones from the Nigerien capital. Nigerien officials have allowed the arming of aircraft in Niamey by the African military and it is said to cost fifty million dollars. They also plan to deploy more American troops in Niger in order to counter "violent extremism" or terrorism. This will significant increase the number of American troops in Niger from the current eight hundred. Supposedly, the placement of these drones will decrease the difficulty of gaining access terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and Boko Haram. This will be the second time America has stationed military drones in Africa.

I think that helping Niger counteract terrorism is good, but it should not be prioritized over the safety of our country. Additionally, I think stationing troops in Niger could incite more wars and other conflicts that we really don't need right now. Because the investment is so high, I do not think it is worth it.

What do you think? Do you think stationing troops and storing armed drones in Niger is a good idea? How might this affect foreign affairs? Do you think the expansion of America's military is a good idea?

Trump Chooses Conservatives for Federal Reserve Board

Article

Trump nominated Marvin Goodfriend (pictured above) to serve on the Federal Reserve's board of governors. Goodfriend is a economics professor at Carnegie Mellon and a known conservative. This shouldn't come as a surprise following Trump's selection of Jerome H. Powell, a moderate Republican. Goodfriend has long critiqued the work of the Federal Reserve, claiming that its work is counter intuitive.

I think that Goodfriend's placement may bring a positive change in economic policy, as he can bring a level of economic expertise that the other board members couldn't in the past. He certainly seems to have already thought of ways that the Federal Reserve can improve. However, seeing that Trump is leaning towards creating a board of conservatives, I don't anticipate a broad enough spectrum of policy opinions.

What do you think? Do you think that filling the board with only conservatives is a bad idea? How do you think Goodfriend will effect change in economic policy?

Donald Trump retweets far-right group's anti-Muslim videos

Donald Trump has retweeted several anti-islam posts on Twitter, stirring up controversy as to whether this is an appropriate thing for the president to do. These retweets are videos with titles such as "Islamist mob pushes teenage boy off roof and beats him to death!". These tweets reveal actions that radical islamic extremists are doing to other people and Trump claims that retweeting these posts are necessary in order to bring attention to the extreme and violent nature of radical islam. Critics of this argue that Trump retweeting these posts implies that Trump believes that these actions are commonplace in the muslim community and are giving a bad image to Islam by suggesting that all muslims have such behavior. My opinion is that there are a lot of radical muslims and the idea that radical muslims are a "tiny minority" is untrue because in fact there are millions of muslims around the world who believe in radical ideas. Over 90% of the people in several islamic countries support sharia law, a radical system of law where those who insult or disobey parts of their religion have severe punishments. It is important to realize the real danger of radical islam because this sector of the population is not nearly as small as some make it out to be and they have the potential to cause a lot of conflicts and problems. This being said, saying that muslims as a general group are violent and hold radical beliefs would be unfair and inaccurate because in fact there are many muslims, especially in the US who are peaceful and do not have radical views, so suggesting that muslims as a whole are violent and intolerant would be false and places an unfair stigma on Islam itself.

What do you guys think of Trump's retweets?
How do you think we should approach radical Islam and Islam as a whole?

North Korea Fires a Ballistic Missile to Further Challenge Trump

North Korea has fired another ballistic missile as an act of defiance against President Trump after he put North Korea on a list of state sponsors of terrorism. This missile was launched higher and farther than any other missile North Korean has launched before. This suggests that North Korea is continuing it's plan to strengthen it's nuclear arsenal in order to possibly attack the US. Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un have been exchanging insults to each other during this entire struggle. Trump has called Kim "rocket man" and has threatened to use "fire and fury" on North Korea. Kim has called Trump degrading names such as "a mentally deranged U.S dotard". This whole situation between the US and North Korea has been gaining a lot of tension recently and I think that a lot of it is the fault of Donald Trump. I think Trump has a tendency to get too involved in foreign affairs. From attacking Syria in response to their use of chemical weapons to his aggressive handling of North Korea, I think Trump need to have more of a peaceful approach to the world because I think war should be avoided at all costs since war does little to no good if not fought for a worthy cause. Trump's attitude towards other nations I think is threatening to the safety and security of our country as it greatly increases the chance of us getting into violent confrontations with other countries.

How do you guys think Trump is doing with regards to his approach to conflicts with other nations?
What should we do about this situation with North Korea?
Is Trump indeed being a "dotard"?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/world/asia/north-korea-missile-test.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

G.O.P Tax Bill Take a Big Step Forward With Committee Vote

Article Link

A huge achievement for the Republican Tax Bill was accomplished today as the Senate's budget committee voted to pass the 1.5 trillion dollar tax package. This instance allows the bill to potentially get a full senate vote during the week. Backtracking towards how the bill was recoginzed, President Trump went down to Captiol Hill earlier this week to lunch with some Republicans claiming, "I think we're going to get it passed". This meeting seemed to push many of the committe members firmly on Trumps side as it was accepted in a party-line vote. The Senate begins procedural motion to begin consideration of the bill Wednesday, and if that passes, it can begin debating and amending parts of the package by Friday. However, this victory isn't fool-proof and the Senate has a long way to go before this bill can claim any real victory.

Questions:
1. Do you think that the bill can/will go any farther than the Senate?
2. If it does move on, and since there are still issues that need to be resolved between the House and the Senate, what are your thoughts on how it will go then?

Data Stolen from Homeland Security

Article

Three employees of a branch Homeland Security have been accused of stealing a computer system containing the names, social security numbers and dates of birth of 246,000 agency employees. It is suspected that the insiders were trying to modify the software in order to sell a "knockoff" to other Homeland Security offices. The branch has been trying to gather hundreds of thousands of dollars from component agencies to monitor the credit scores of the agency employees whose data was breached. The case is currently being investigated.

I think that while it is not known whether or not any of the employees whose data was stolen was affected by the breach, this security breach can negatively impact a multitude of employees and exposes holes in our national security. I think that Homeland Security should do something to increase their security.

What do you think? Should citizens be concerned over security breaches like these? How should Homeland Security resolve this? If the accused are guilty, how should they be punished?

What the Tax Bill Would Look Like for 25,000 Middle Class Families

Tax deduction: reduction of an income that can be taxed and is commonly from a result from expenses.
Itemized deduction: tax deduction from a person's gross income that is made up from money spent on goods and services throughout the year

Article Link

Since its rearing on Thursday, November 16th, the new Tax Bill could spell out many benefits, and troubles, for American middle class families. The article includes an interactive chart, picture shown above, explaining the effects of the bill on middle class families. The vertical axis represent income, the horizontal axis conveys the size of the tax cut/increase. The right side represents tax cuts, the left is tax increase. The article does a better job of explaining the chart so check it out! (For you) Now before one dives in, let it be known that this bill, if it’s passed, will affect different types of families in completely different ways; its effect on everyone however is absolute. First off, mostly everyone who takes a standard deduction gets a tax cut; essentially this means that they’ll have to pay a lump sum of all their deductions wrapped into one. The bill would raise the amount, slightly more for a married couple, and most would not get a tax increase. Those who itemize their deductions, would pay more, a lot more. Secondly, families with children get a greater tax cut. The bill would double the child tax credit to $2000 dollars per child resulting in a tax cut for families that earn higher. Thirdly, those who pay great amounts of money towards state and local taxes could see a big tax increase. One of the bill’s major changes would be the elimination of deduction of state and local taxes. It would affect a majority of people living on the coast- New York, California, Connecticut- states that vote for democrats and have higher tax rates. Lastly, and unfortunately, the future might bring a tax increase for middle-class households; not only will individuals be taxed higher, but households too. All of those benifits- the cuts, child credit, etc.,- is set to expire in 2025. About ⅔ of middle class holder would get a tax increase and none would get a cut. The bill would also cut taxes on business, which would not expire. Congress tax analysts group, the Joint Committee on Taxation, claim that workers might get higher wages from thier less taxed employers, but many aren't agreeing with those odds.

(P.S: There's a pop-up block on the website, sorry!)

Questions:

1. What are your thoughts on this bill, especially now that it has passed Senate budget committee?
2. Are there any foreseeable problems or errors with this tax bill?
3. How do you think it would affect you personally?

Dog Owners Live Longer

Image: Getty

          In a study conducted in Sweden, data illustrated a correlation between owning a dog and "reduced risk for cardiovascular disease and death." In particular, the relationship was stronger with retrievers and pointers. An idea suggests that the relationship may be due to the owner's personality in choosing a certain type of dog, but another is that certain dogs act differently around their owners due to their own personality.
          Having a dog is more motivation to exercise because they need to be walked, but dogs also offer companionship. If your parents are on the border of allowing you to get a dog, perhaps, you could show them this article. Additionally, the study will be linked here.

Questions:
1. I think that dogs release dopamine in the brain. What do you think explains why humans may be healthier when they're owners of a dog? 

If No One Owns the Moon, Can Anyone Make Money Up There?

Image: J. W. Draper—London Stereoscopic Company/Getty Images

Article Link:

          In 1967, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, or Outer Space Treaty, was created in order to dictate what countries are allowed to do in space. Initially, it halted the nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States from encroaching into space, but in the world of advanced technology, entrepreneurs are testing their limits in space as well. For example, Elon Musk claims he will have colonists sent to Mars in the next 12 years; Jeff Bozos, CEO of Amazon, has founded the company Blue Origin that is funding the mission to have people working in space. Moon Express, a private company, is attempting to bring samples from the moon back to Earth, a feat that surpasses even that of NASA's. However, in doing so, the company ran into an issue last year because commercial companies "require authorization and continuing supervision of the United States government. In working with the Federal Aviation Administration, Moon Express gained approval for one of their potential launches. Other companies are moving forward with the hope the government, too, will approve the projects.

          The works of another company, Planetary Resources, brings up more questions concerning space rights. Their goal is to "mine the solar system's asteroids." As of now, they wish to mine ice water from the moon. After, the company plants to mine other precious metals, which raises the question of who is allowed to profit from the extractions. In 2015, President Obama signed a law, which Congress passed, stating that "private companies can sell and own what they extract." So far, the House has a written bill dictating the time frame for whether the Office of Space Commerce will approve or not approve a company's application. The bill has not yet passed in the House and the Senate is working on their own.

Questions:

1. Do you think that private companies should be allowed to do whatever they want on the moon? Should they at least be allowed to mine it for materials?

2. If private companies are allowed to mine the moon for materials, do you think they should be allowed to sell it for profit?

3. Will allowing private companies freedom on the moon ultimately wreak havoc upon it?

3. What other thoughts do you have?

Trump Insults Senator with Racial Slur

      GARY CAMERON/REUTERS/FILE

Article

At a White House event to honor World War II veterans of Navajo descent, Trump referred to Senator Elizabeth Warren as "Pocahontas" because of her alleged Native American descent. His remark has sparked a number of responses, calling it "offensive" and "derisive." However, the White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders has defended it, claiming that it is not a racial slur, and even accusing Senator Warren of lying about her Native American heritage "to advance her career."

While the accusations against Senator Warren are plausible due to policies like affirmative action, I think it is still unacceptable for Trump to use racially insensitive remarks. Additionally, I don't understand how referring to a Native American as "Pocahontas" isn't a racial slur. He basically associated her with the first Native American person that came to mind with no other legitimate reason, which I construe as racism.

What do you think? Do you believe the White House's defense of Trump is legitimate? Do you think Trump referring to Senator Warren as Pocahontas is racist?

Consumer Agency head decision headed to court

Photo Source: LA Times, picture of Mike Mulvaney

Leandra English, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was named to that role when previous Director Richard Cordray resigned on Friday. However, President Donald Trump decided to appoint Mike Mulvaney to the head of that agency. In response, English has filed a lawsuit, attempting to stop the appointment of Mulvaney. She claims that she is entitled to the role based on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, which was signed by President Obama in 2010, as Cordray had not finished his term yet (he still had 8 months left).

Part of this comes down with the agency, which was created during the Great Recession to protect consumers and their interests regarding mortgages and debts, as well as regulating the finances of Americans. However, Republicans have long opposed it and Mulvaney, a former Congressman, voted to shut down the agency. They believe that the regulations are hindering economic growth. Trump has called the agency a mess and claiming it needs new leadership to bring it back to life.

However, English in her lawsuit, along with many other Democrats, believe that this appointment is only there to bring an end to the agency. They believe that Trump's actions and goals will violate the law.

Who do you think should be the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Do you think the Bureau has been good for Americans? Why or Why not?

Sources:
NY Times
CNN
LA Times

Black Friday Gun Background Checks Reportedly Soar To Record High

Link to Article

According to the FBI, during this year's Black Friday, 203,086 background checks were conducted for firearm purchases. This is the highest number of background checks for any Black Friday in history. The fact is that Black Friday is a very popular day for buying guns. The required background checks are meant to ensure that the guns don't fall into the wrong hands.

However, these background checks are often ineffective. Background checks are quick and deliberate, and not very hard to get around. For example, only licensed firearm dealers require background checks. Unlicensed firearm dealers do not require background checks and will sell their guns to virtually anyone who is willing to pay.

In my opinion, gun violence is a problem in present-day America. However, I believe that it is more of a culture issue than anything else, evidenced by the fact that the most gun violence occurs in the areas with the strictest gun control laws. I also believe that these background checks will not be an effective deterrent to gun violence, simply because they are too easy to get around.

Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that background checks are an effective way to deter gun violence? Why or why not?
What do you believe to be the best way to stop gun violence in America?

Weinstein inquiry: police departments likely to join forces, experts say

Link to Article

Harvey Weinstein has always been a very big man in Hollywood. He's been a producer in many hit movies, such as Pulp Fiction and Good Will Hunting. Over the last few months, however, about 80 women have come forward with allegations that they were sexually abused by Weinstein. Weinstein denies all claims of nonconsensual sex.

Investigators from both the LAPD and NYPD have opened up criminal cases and started to gather evidence of Weinstein's misconduct. They plan to interview alleged victims and gather enough evidence to file charges against Weinstein. Although Weinstein has been accused of this behavior in the past, there was never enough evidence to file charges. However, with all the women coming forward now, New York attorney Jeanne Christensen claims, "I would be shocked if charges [were] not filed".

I believe that Harvey Weinstein is guilty of sexual harassment. The idea of a "Hollywood casting couch" does not strike me as ridiculous, and I would not be surprised if Weinstein was not the only guilty producer. Also, with the outrageous number of women coming out to speak about Weinstein, I believe that most, if not all of them are telling the truth.

Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that Weinstein is guilty of these sexual harassment allegations? Why or why not?
What do you think will happen to Weinstein regarding these possible charges?