Blog Stage 8

       In an editorial posted by Let’s Talk Politics, author Michael addresses his concerns with the proposed plan of raising taxes on the rich in order to reduce interest rates on student loans. He strongly disagrees with this plan, suggesting that the wealthy are hardworking and do not deserve to be taxed.

       Michael’s primary argument is that the wealthy already paid their way through college and therefore do not deserve to be heavily taxed to help others pay for college. He specifically states that many Americans who are wealthy now, once started off in the middle or lower classes. After reading this claim, it seems to me that he is talking about the exception, and not the norm, as for the most part, a person’s economic class does not change over his or her lifetime. Using “exceptions” as evidence is not very supportive or convincing in an argument. If he cited statistics that support this claim, then his argument would be stronger. I agree with him that raising taxes on the rich is not as simple as it seems, and a lot of times after analyzed, plans to do start to fall apart. There are many failed attempts that could have been referred to, as well as mathematical evidence and economic theories describing why this idea would not work. Lastly, Michael could have been more descriptive as to what the current proposed plan of taxing the rich is. For example, who exactly is determined to be “rich” and how much of their income would be taxed.

       Michael ends his argument by discussing how the many people who are wealthy donate to charity. This strengthens his claim as it shows that rich people are doing their part to help lower classes. Michael’s argument could be stronger by being more descriptive and using outside reliable resources to support his claims.

Blog Stage 7: Goodbye Civil Rights

       With a tweet, the President’s favored form of communication, Donald Trump vowed to fight for the LGBT community in June of last year. Now, over a year later, the President’s actions could not be further from what he promised. The President has proven that the LGBT community means nothing more to him than a hollow campaign strategy with the Trump administration’s infringement on LGBT rights.

       The attack on the LGBT began as soon as Trump was sworn in with the removal of all content related to LGBT civil rights from whitehouse.gov back in January. This action is a clear encroachment on LGBT rights and yet it was not noticed by nearly enough people nor did it receive the backlash it deserved. Unfortunately, this was just the beginning of the Trump administration’s plan for LGBT rights. During the Obama administration, protections were granted to transgender students so they could safely use their corresponding restrooms in public schools. These protections were quickly revoked in February. In April, the Justice Department dropped a federal lawsuit concerning North Carolina’s “bathroom bill, no doubt due to the new President’s disinterest with civil rights. In July, the Trump administration continued their assault by again revoking protections to the LGBT community, but this time removing those preventing discrimination in the workplace. Trump received the most media backlash when he announced his intent to ban all transgender people from the military. Criticism of the military ban was widespread, especially among celebrities who took to social media to voice their disapproval.

       The attack on LGBT civil rights by the Trump administration is hard not to see, yet it is not being fought with much ferocity. With all the Trump scandals, it seems Americans are tired and disenthused with the government, electing stay at home rather than fight these cruel policies. This cannot be the civilian response that goes down in history. We need to organize and call our senators, letting our concerns be heard and fight back.

Blog Stage 6

       In a commentary posted by Pondering Politics, author Jessica Nguyen addresses her concern with the Trump administration’s neglect of environmental protection; specifically, when Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate change agreement.

       Nguyen claims that failing to cooperate with the Paris climate change agreement causes Trump to lose power and weakens the United States. The Paris climate change agreement was created in 2015 and has been ratified by over 150 nations. During its creation, former President Obama committed the U.S to this agreement, however, Trump quickly backed out of this prior commitment. Nguyen attacks Trump’s character when discussing French President Emmanuel Macron’s effort to draw the U.S back into the agreement. She stated that, as usual, efforts to change Trump’s mind are futile. This point in her argument could have been strengthened if she had cited other instances where Trump’s stubbornness prevailed, and he refused to admit his misdoing. This would substantiate her criticism of Trump’s general persona.

       I agree with Jessica that Trump’s decision weakens America and makes him look ridiculous, as climate change is too obviously real to ignore or deny. As Jessica is not a climate scientist herself, I believe that had she cited data or quotes from climate change experts, her argument would have been stronger. I also believe Nguyen should have ended her commentary on a more active note with a call to action, encouraging citizens to raise their voices in favor of clean energy instead of hoping other countries will clean up our mess. Overall, I liked the argument presented in this commentary, but I think it would be helpful if more information from other sources were present.

Blog Stage 5: Imminent Impeachment

Donald Trump, known for being a businessman and TV show host, won himself the oval office by appealing to the far-right with his unfiltered ramblings, as well as to those intrigued by the idea of having a president who is not a politician. However appealing it might have been to have a president who is not a career politician, having held no official public office before, it makes Trump grossly unqualified for the position of President of the United States. This ill-suited match has become painfully obvious in recent months. From enacting several unconstitutional travel bans that had to be struck down by higher courts to firing members of the Justice Department, the President’s actions are outrageous and concerning. While there has been some talk about consequences for the toddler president’s tantrums, not nearly enough action has been taken. The impeachment of Donald Trump needs to turn from fantasy to reality.

Trump’s signature “You’re Fired” catchphrase, coined on the popular TV show “The Apprentice”, has been used a little too often in recent months. Trump began his rampage with the firing of acting attorney general Sally Yates back in January, but it was not until the firing of FBI director James Comey in May that the media coverage escalated. Yates was fired after refusing to defend Trump’s executive order on immigration and Comey was fired while investigating Trump’s ties with Russia. It looks like Trump will fire anyone with the courage to disagree or speak out against him. Even more concerning is he then gets to replace those he fired with new, brainwashed, worshipping ones. It sounds like Trump would prefer to cause controversy with firing of members of the Justice Department rather than have anybody critique or even question his actions. This is all the more reason to voice our critiques and questions louder.

Trump’s travel bans, which first started in January, was highly condemned for attacking and threatening people’s individual liberties. The ban became confusing, as well as cruel, when it notably left out Saudi Arabia, a country that Trump had business relations with. The ban was made to look like it was for the protection of the United States, but it could not have possibly been for national security if he only blocked muslim-majority countries with whom he has not done business. Let’s not forget the many other instances of shameless self-promotion by the Trump administration, such as Kellyanne Conway telling Americans to “go buy Ivanka’s stuff” or the pressure placed on foreign diplomats to stay and host events at the Trump International Hotel. It is clear that Trump places his well being far above that of the country he is suppose to be serving.

The firing of Yates and Comey as well as the travel ban are just a few out of the many things Trump has done that should incite backlash from Congress.

Blog Stage 4: If President Trump fires Robert Mueller, we're headed for a constitutional crisis

In an editorial posted by the Los Angeles Times, author Doyle McManus addresses his concerns relating to the investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election. McManus appears credible, having served as the Los Angeles Times’ Washington D.C bureau chief from 1996 until 2008 and having covered every presidential election since 1984.

McManus claims if President Trump fires Robert Mueller, the special counsel who is investigating the ties between Russia and Trump, we are headed toward a “constitutional crisis”. Trump has stated that if the special counsel looks into his family’s business firm, it would be a “violation”. McManus criticizes this statement, saying that it is within Mueller’s power to inquire into Trump’s business relations since the Deputy Attorney General gave Mueller full authority to investigate any link between Russia and Trump. He then goes on to draw a parallel between the current investigation of President Trump and the investigation of former President Bill Clinton. The investigation of Clinton started with an inquest into his family finances, but led to more disconcerting matters of extramarital affairs and perjury. This comparison strengthens his argument that it is acceptable to look into Trump’s business relationships as it could produce new information that is relevant to the investigation. McManus went on to discuss Trump’s elusive statement of Mueller having a “conflict of interest”. Trump alluded that he would reveal these “conflicts of interest” at a later date, but the only conflict released so far is a dispute Mueller had concerning membership fees with Trump National Golf Course. McManus cites this to suggest that Trump has no viable reasons for thinking Mueller has a conflict of interest, as a dispute over a golf membership is hardly a conflict at all. McManus goes on to discuss the two ways Trump could go about firing Mueller, either change the Deputy Attorney General’s mind or replace him. McManus claims that if this were to happen, there would be a repeat of former President Richard Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre. The similarities between Watergate and “Russiagate” is effective as an attention grabber as it foreshadows a resignation from or an impeachment of President Trump.

McManus ends his argument by addressing Republicans to voice their concerns and advise Trump that there will be serious consequences for his actions. He specifically recommends Fox News as a platform to do so. I agree with author Doyle McManus that the investigation into Russian ties should continue without being restricted or manipulated by the Trump administration, as that is the only way to find the truth. However, I think that McManus’s argument relied too heavily on examples of impeachments of former presidents. Even with the evident similarities of the past, he should have focused more on the current situation with recent events and actions, as it is still a different situation in a different America.

Blog Stage Three: The Voter Purges

In a commentary posted by the New York Times, author Vanita Gupta addresses the concerns she has about the letter sent by the Trump administration's election-integrity commission inquiring about the maintenance of voter rolls. Gupta appears to be knowledgeable and credible as she was a head of the civil rights division at Justice Department during the Obama administration and is currently the president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

Gupta claims the request, which supposedly was checking up on the compliance of 44 states with the 1993 National Voter Registration Act, made by the commission is actually an attempt to purge voters, primarily minorities. She believes the commission will use the information they receive to find evidence of voter fraud, such as double-voters. However, this process will make it difficult to tell people with the same name and birthday apart, and since minorities of overrepresented in 85 of the 100 most common last names, they will receive the most damage from this “purge”. She seems to overstate this issue since the probability of people having the same first and last name,  as well as middle name, and the same birthday, is an extremely low probability. She then goes on to cite how there have already been lawsuits filed in Georgia and Ohio for earlier attempts of trying to prohibit voters. This evidence strengthens her case as the federal court ruled the voter purge in Ohio unconstitutional, showing there is a legitimate reason to be concerned about a voter purge. Gupta then focused in on Trump's team stating that one member, Ken Blackwell, has already attempted to prohibit voter registration by refusing to accept registration forms on account of the printed paper being too thin. Her scrutiny of Blackwell supports her argument that member on Trump’s team have malicious intentions.

Gupta ends her commentary warning those who are concerned about their personal information being leaked to not pull themselves off of voter rolls because they are afraid. She includes a cry to action to everyday citizens sympathetic to her cause and invites them to push back on the oppression brought forth by the Trump administration by organizing in their communities. I agree that voter purging is a serious and legitimate concern, however, the specific similar name and birthday situation she brings up weakens and draws away from her argument as it is too specific and too rare.

The Playboy President and Women's Health

Today, the New York Times published an editorial concerning the future of women's health under the Trump administration. President Trump, who has a well-known history as a "womanizer", has been noted as the most hostile president toward reproductive rights. Back in February, during a debate, he stated that millions of women affected by cervical and breast cancer were helped by Planned Parenthood. Despite this admission, President Trump has already started his mission of defunding Planned Parenthood by reinstating a policy that cut off foreign funding for planned parenthood. He has also employed several anti-abortion, anti-contraceptive advocates. These series of actions are seen as shocking and hypocritical when his past discretions are considered. He has also shown no sign of helping in the fight against H.I.V./AIDS. The draft of his new budget would cut funding for AIDS relief by more than $1 billion dollars.

The information brought forth in this article concerns everyone, not just women or those who sympathize with the pro-choice cause. This should also worry those who are anti-abortion because the president does not correspond to their values.