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.