Dear Josh,

Dear Josh,

While I agree with your statement that public officials in office should reconsider the use of social media, I do have to somewhat disagree on them forfeiting their social media. As the new technology changes practically everyday I believe that social media can be a vital part in our society. It has its downsides - no doubt about it. However, it is one of the main platforms where candidates and officials in office can voice their opinions on the numerous current events or their agendas. It can reach millions of people within seconds and that's what they want it to do. Therefore social media is doing its job for the candidate and officials for their own marketing to gain new supporters and show the public that they are out there and wanting to be heard. I think that social media is a good resource for our government officials. However, I do think that it should be monitored and or have others proof before sending it out to the world. President Trump is a great example. Can his tweets be embarrassing as they reflect the United States as a country? Yes. Should he keep to only tweeting on certain topics? Yes. Similarly to how most officials have professional speech writers and public relations officials on their teams, they should have others who watch what they post on social media and work solely with that. You see the celebrities have these exact positions working for them and it is for a reason. Overall, I do not think that government officials should get rid of or forfeit their social media accounts. It is a vital piece of technology today that helps them get their message across to millions no matter what their political ideology is. They should have staffers who will monitor and or draft out the postings to ensure that it is not a bad reflection on themselves or the country as a whole.

Are businesses cutting ties with the NRA for their own advantage?

In the recent months, specifically following the Parkland, Florida shooting, many major corporations and businesses have been cutting ties with the National Rifle Association. The National Rifle Association, NRA for short, is one of the largest interest groups in the United States with tens and thousands of members who most all believe strongly in the second amendment. Members range from those who believe in the second amendment with multiple guns, hunters and outdoorsmen, and even some who do not own any guns but still believe in our right. The NRA is classified as a business interest group. To become a member you must pay dues for one, two, three, and or even five years.

Given the large amount of members and it being one of the largest interest groups, the NRA does hold a large amount of power in our government today. They can be seen as an evil group who may have too much power over our elected officials. After each mass shooting, especially and sadly school shootings, the NRA is always under fire as a group that "enables murderers" and one that "doesn't focus on our children." The way that our society has now chosen to show and make a stand that this group may have too much power is by cutting ties with the NRA. Over 22 companies have now cut ties with the NRA. Some of these companies include: Walmart, L.L. Bean, REI, Avis Rental Cars, Hertz, and many more. One of the most recent company that has allegedly cut ties with the NRA is an Austin local company, YETI Coolers. Yeti has responded to the news of cutting ties as "inaccurate." However, the huge backlash from Yeti enthusiasts can be one of the reasons for their response. Many have created hashtags such as #Boycottyeti and have stated their new support for similar companies such as Rtic Coolers and Orca Coolers. Both Rtic and Orca released statements to their markets that they both support the second amendment and will stand with the NRA. As well as not conforming to public pressure to do what the public wants them to do as a company.

Ultimately, the companies are making a stand in what their corporate believes in. But mostly taking advantage of the awful attacks in our country as a way of gaining a possible larger target market and a different market then they had before cutting ties. The businesses should stay to how they were before and keeping their ties with others. They should not make irrational decisions just because of the public pushing their views on big corporations. Many companies want to see themselves as trying to make a difference but in reality they are just trying to gain their business in times of a tragedy.

Krista,

I could not agree with you more on your reasoning behind being grateful for President Trump. In your article, A Liberals Gratitude For Trump, you stated that you were grateful for the tenacity and vigor that the American people have shown since President Trump has been in office. I am conservative but that does not mean that I condone the numerous horrifying statements and actions of our President and completely see how you are grateful for him. I too, applaud those who are standing up for what they believe in and trying to make our society ethically right.

With the #MeToo movement, women are now being able to have a voice in sexual misconduct in and out of the workplace. This movement is a huge milestone for all women and our place in society. Those who were once afraid to say something due to retaliation and loss of a job are now able to stand up for themselves and fight for what is right. For this, I too, am grateful for President Trump.

With primaries being over in Texas, we saw literal record breaking numbers in the number of Democrats who voted. Those who believe that we need change in our city, state, and country are coming out in ginormous waves of support. You also mentioned that now we are seeing shifts in the political power balance. We did see huge amounts of first-time female candidates and I cannot express how great that makes me feel. I agree with you in being grateful for President Trump.

Overall, you and I may not see eye-to-eye on policies and that's okay. But I can honestly say that I agree with you. I agree with you that with President Trump being in office, he has affected millions in our country of all ages to stand up for what they believe in.

Was the underlining meaning of firing Andrew McCabe because President Trump didn't get his way?

If you have been reading and listening to the national news recently then you will know the name, Andrew McCabe. Andrew McCabe was a 21 year veteran of the FBI and the former FBI director when he was fired just 26 hours before he was set to retire and gain his pension. Some theories around the sudden firing of McCabe was retaliation based on the end result of the Hillary Clinton e-mail investigation which McCabe was the head of. In July of 2017, President Donald Trump had tweeted "'Why didn't A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got....'" Fast forward to December of 2017, President Trump then tweeted "'FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe is racing the clock to retire with full benefits. 90 days to go?!!!'" One other theory as to why McCabe was fired was also along the lines of retaliation. McCabe's wife, Jill McCabe, ran for Senate in Virginia and had received $700,000 from the Clintons in support of Jill McCabe's campaign. Both theories have Hillary Clinton in the middle of them which is why many believe President Trump essentially "had it out for McCabe." There are certainly other theories such as some that have to deal with the Russian collusion investigation. Overall, whatever we all may think the true reasoning behind the firing of McCabe was, the timing does send a bad message about the Trump administration as well as the comments that President Trump had made throughout 2017 on regards to McCabe. Whatever the reasoning was that is no excuse to fire him only hours before he was eligible to gain his pension.

The voting age should be dropped to sixteen! That's absurd.

Michelle Malkin, author of the "Michelle Malkin Blog", has a recent blog post which she is disagreeing with Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe who tweeted, “Wouldn’t it be great if the voting age were lowered to 16? Just a pipe dream, I know, but . . . #Children’sCrusade?” and University of Kentucky law professor Joshua Douglas who asserted that "'we should include them more directly in our democratic process' by enfranchising them now." Both statements are formed around the current attention that our nation's teenagers have been receiving due to the hundreds of walk-outs and protests they have organized in relation to the Parkland School shooting this past February. Malkin believes that even the thought of letting sixteen-year-olds vote in our country is absurd. Malkin, who has two teenagers herself, notes that "[They] are fueled by hormones and dopamine and pizza and Sonic shakes. They’re fickle and fragile and fierce and forgetful. They hate you. They love you. They need you. They ignore you. They know everything. They know nothing. All in the span of 10 seconds." She believes that they are essentially not capable of understanding the process and the repercussions that go into the fight for banning the AR-15 rifle or wanting to change the gun laws. Malkin does note that there are certainly many students participating these protests who are well above their age and remarkably smart. However, they still do not have the "wisdom" that Malkin believes is needed to understand our history, laws and public policies.

Malkin's intended audience for this article would be for both those who believe that we should include teenagers in our democracy by letting them vote and those who do not agree with letting teenagers vote in elections at the age of sixteen. The audience of Malkin's blog could trust her credibility due her being a guest on Fox and Friends, a well-known opinion writer as well as being a guest speaker at several Universities for conservative leaders. However, those who tend to have a liberal ideology most likely would not find Malkin as credible than those who view themselves as conservative with her same opinions.

I believe that Malkin has effectively used her personal knowledge of teenagers and her thought process to give her opinion on not letting teenagers vote due to their lack of wisdom, knowledge of laws, policies and history and their immaturity. I do agree with Malkin in that the voting age of eighteen was designed for a reason and that we do not let those younger vote for the reasons stated above. Overall, I believe that  Malkin is correct with her argument and that many others should read this post and hopefully see the side from a different point of view.

Do the Democrats Need Their Own Donald Trump to Succeed?

Liz Peek, an Opinion writer for Fox News, has the article, Liz Peek: Struggling Dems need their own Donald Trump. Peek's intended audience for this article would be those who identify their political ideology as Democrat. She is speaking to the Democrats insisting on what she believes the type of candidate that they need. Those who are reading Peek's article can trust her credibility due to her being a published Opinion Columnist for Fox News. However, those who do not trust Fox News or are leaning more towards the Left usually will not be reading Fox News and most likely will not believe or agree with articles and or opinions that are stated from Fox.

In Peek's article, she explains how the Democratic party needs a candidate who "can weave progressive threads together with mainstream American values to create a new tapestry, winning over disaffected voters on the left and the right". This candidate that she is implying should be similar to Donald Trump, who succeeded against all odds because he was offering the country a new story. Peek does show the evidence that President Trump came out of nowhere. She even agrees that those who say he is not a Republican. He succeeded despite the very slim odds that the polls had predicted. He energized the country promising us a new and fresh start for the country. Many were fearing that our country was slipping in the wrong direction and a drastic change was needed and he was promising us just that. As Peek shows, as a candidate, President Trump was not afraid to tell us how it is.

Throughout the whole article, Peek effectively uses the examples of President Trump as to why the Democrats need a candidate similar to him to help boost their party. I do agree to an extent with Peek. I agree with Peek that, "the Democrats need a candidate that is willing to challenge the liberal orthodoxy". If they can get a candidate who is willing to do so, it will help them possibly gain more control and become stronger as one.

Second government shutdown in three weeks.

Government shutdowns are never good, let alone having two in only three weeks. They close almost all federal buildings and operations such as national parks, no pay for military or federal workers and much more. The most recent shutdown was resolved in the early morning of Friday, February 9, 2018. Lawmakers were struggling to pass a spending bill that would fund the government for this year. According to the ABC News article, it states that the lawmakers passed a bipartisan budget deal that would increase military spending by over $300 billion, $90 billion fusion for disaster relief and funding towards medical priorities like the opioid crisis and veterans medical facilities. The government will be running at least to March 23. Lawmakers need to pass another measure that will fund us for 2018 and longer. Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee of Responsible Federal Budget, believes that this should be classified as fiscal malpractice and that it could add up to $2 trillion to the national debt.

I emphasize everyone to read this article because no matter what political party you associate yourself with, the bills that are being passed and that have caused the shutdowns will affect you and your community.