RE: Twitter Users Vs. Trump

              On July 24^th, 2017, Emily DiMego published her blog Twitter Users Vs. Trump. Emily contemplates Trump’s use of Twitter as a public forum, and his actions through his social media use. She believes that Trump doesn’t have the right to block Twitter users, and that it is a violation of the First Amendment by doing so seeing as it was his choice to use and continue to tweet on his personal Twitter account.

              Seeing as this is America’s first time seeing this active of a social media typhoon as our President, it is safe to say it took America by surprise when Trump continued his controversial and opinioned tirades on Twitter during his campaign and after his inauguration. I agree with Emily in that Trump should not have the ability to block people from his Twitter account seeing as he made this his primary mode of communication with the public. The people that Trump is blocking on Twitter are the people who are openly engaging in heated arguments, or opposing his opinions. It is childish of the leader of our country to not let people speak their minds, and not acknowledge differing opinions.

              Where I disagree with Emily is that blocking users is a violation of the First Amendment. Due to the First Amendment, Trump has the right to tweet what he wants, as do other Twitter users. However, I don’t believe First Amendment rights are being withheld from the blocked users as there are many ways to still view and access the President’s tweets despite being blocked. Henceforth, they can continue to engage and be involved in roundabout ways in lieu of being blocked.

              As the President of the United States, and an expert Tweeter, Trump should be able to handle backlash, and differing opinions that his tweets bring. Trump acknowledges and runs with being a controversial person, and thus should not expect everyone to agree with everything he says. Instead of blocking people for disagreeing with him, he should set an example and ignore the comments, or if he feels passionately, he should engage in a respectful discussion. America is a diverse, opinionated country, and if Trump cannot handle opposition or constructive criticism, should he really be in charge of this country?

The Circle of Killing Someone Who Killed Someone

              Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is a controversial topic in which has been debated on for years at this point. The death penalty is often sentenced for treason, espionage, murder, drug trafficking, or attempted murder on people involved in certain cases.  Since 1976, Texas leads the states in the number of cumulative executions, and is one of the leaders of most wrongful convictions.

              Despite the death penalty only being handed down for the most serious of criminal cases, I personally do not think that it should continue to be used as a punishment for crimes. Had life in prison without parole not been an alternative sentence, I could more see supporting the death penalty as it would be the only option; however, seeing as there is the option of keeping the convicted in prison for the remained of their life, it seems as if this would be the more humane punishment.

              At least4%, if not more, of the people sentenced to death turn out to be innocent. We can only hope that they are exonerated before their execution takes place, unlike the Willingham case. Due to the fact that the death penalty is not 100% fault proof, it doesn’t seem fair to use. Should there be a way to make sure that every single person that is sentenced to death is 100% guilty, then it would be a more argumentatively fair punishment if the person committed one of the crimes listed earlier. However, seeing as it is not without error, and has not been for decades, the alternative life in prison without parole seems more fitting.

              The Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states “no cruel and unusual punishments should be inflicted.” In my opinion, killing someone seems fitting as cruel and unusual. To kill someone to punish them for killing someone only puts us in the same category as the convict. Especially considering the statistics about innocent people being executed, this makes the death penalty all the more inhumane. There is no good lesson taught in killing someone, even murderers, and they could easily receive a punishment of life without parole.

              The hypocrisy of killing someone who killed someone is evident, and becomes all the more apparent when the person executed turns out to be innocent. Without having a foolproof way of knowing the death row inmate is not innocent, there is a chance of executing an innocent person which has happened countless times. The death penalty is everything the Eighth Amendment prohibits, especially with the alternative of life without parole sitting right next to it. 

RE: The Electoral College

              For blog stage 5, Alia wrote an article on her blog about the Electoral College. She considers the possibility that the popular vote does not aid in determining the President of the United State, and that the Electoral College is solely responsible for that determination. She states her answer of the popular vote vs Electoral College debate is unclear; however, she points out an example of how the Electoral College has an upper hand on citizens through an example of the 2000 presidential campaign thus shifting her stance more towards the side favoring popular votes.

              Personally, I believe that America should move towards a more popular vote dominated system in order to protect the sovereignty of the people.  The Electoral College has a number of issues including the unequal dispersion of votes, the significance of said votes depending on if the state is classified as swing or safe, and the dilution of the peoples’ voices considering electors vote ultimately for who they want. Using a national popular vote to select the President would give each individual equal weight and significance towards the election, and would generally increase voter participation.

              I do agree with Alia in that the Electoral College was created in attempt to compensate for the lack of knowledge citizens have towards politics. Hopefully, with expanding media outlets, and putting out more unbiased information in the duration of each election the public can gain the knowledge needed for an informed election. This increase in public knowledge would need to happen before a national popular vote system can be used to pick the President; however, should this happen, a national popular vote would be the ideal way to not diminish the power of the people, and to have the fairest elections possible.  As of now with the Electoral College, popular votes don’t seem to matter nearly at all, but with the termination of this system, the popular votes would hold all the power.

The "A" Word

              Abortion: the whispered topic of conversation people tend to forgo speaking of due to the sensitive nature. Due to the diversity found throughout the United States of America, there are pro-life supporters, pro-choice supporters, and certain caveats often acknowledged. Abortion has been and is continuing to become one of the most debated topics in government today.

Currently, 43 states prohibit abortions after a specified point in the pregnancy. As of a 2017 opinion poll, a little over 75% of Democrats consider abortion to be legal in all or most cases, while around 65% of Republics, including Donald Trump, tend to support abortion being illegal in all or most cases. As a country, 57% of the public believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases. These numbers are as high as they have been throughout 20 years of polling.

Republicans, pro-life supporters, believe unborn children have the same right to life as anyone else and oppose the premature ending of life, and thus oppose the Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade, legalizing abortion. Democrats, on the other hand, are pro-choice supporters, and believe it should be up to the woman to make an informed decision regarding what is happening to her body. That being said, the extremely opposite views provide a lot of debate and conversation throughout the nation.

              Personally, I find myself stuck in the middle on a debate affecting the nation. As someone who loves children, works with them every day, and makes googly eyes at babies across restaurants, I cannot imagine any of them not having the chance to live their life. I am constantly amazed at the families I see succeeding and caring for the children they had young, or potentially hadn’t planned on having right then. I believe and have seen young people raise children in loving, nurturing, and fantastic ways. However, I can’t seem to convince myself that abortion should be 100% illegal no matter the circumstance.
              Remember the caveats I mentioned earlier? If a fetus was created through an act of rape, or the fetus is harming the mother, I don’t believe aborting the fetus should be illegal. If a girl is raped by someone, or a group of people and thus winds up pregnant, she shouldn’t have to be expected to raise that child. Imagine if she was incredibly young, or if she was mentally impaired, or if she turned to making bad decisions due to the grief of being reminded about what happened to her whenever she looked at her child. That isn’t fair to her, and someone in that position should be able to decide if they want to continue the pregnancy or not, for the sake of the mother and child. Additionally, if a fetus is harming the mother to the point of severe pain, permanent damage, or death, she should have the option to discontinue the pregnancy.
              I believe that the exceptional circumstances in which an abortion should be allowed should be defined by either each states legislature, or the national legislature. I think that allowing women personally to determine if they fall under an "extenuating circumstance" allowing for abortion would do more harm than good as it would continue to allow for excessive abortions, and would not limit the causes for abortion. I think by having clearly defined prerequisites by a legislature for allowing an abortion would limit the number of abortions done in the United States as it would require women to provide proof in order to receive an abortion, and would hopefully aid in encouraging people to be more careful. 

              All in all, I don’t know what category my opinion fits in, or if it has it’s own category. I believe there are extenuating circumstances in which a pregnancy can be terminated, and thus abortion should be legal for those. However, I also believe that abortion should not be seen as a means of birth control and should be reserved for situations desperately calling for it.

Charlie's Fight for Parental Rights

             Since the GoFundMe sensation has taken off, the public has been made hyperaware of varying cases concerning things from medical treatments, kidnappings, animal abuse, college tuitions, etc. Although many medical cases concerning whether or not to continue treatment tend to make it to national news, the GoFundMe for Charlie Gard has drawn almost 100,000 supporters worldwide.

              USA Today’s Melissa Moschella wrote an opinion piece concerning the ongoing battle Charlie’s parents are facing due to their desire to have an experimental procedure done to potentially help Charlie. The fate after the procedure cannot be determined, and they have received backlash from the hospital and Justice presiding over the case as well as people across the globe.

              Moschella, a professor at Columbia University who has published novels concerning parental rights, medical ethics, and children’s autonomy, aims her article at those opposing the experimental treatment for Charlie. She asks her readers, and helps guide them through each answer choice, who should be responsible for deciding Charlie’s fate since he cannot. Moschella declares the correct answer to be that the parent’s should have the authority to decide what happens to their child. Along with Hirano, the doctor planning on performing the experimental therapy, the parents, several US Supreme Court cases entitling parental rights to their children, and both the European Convention of Human Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I agree with Moschella and the many people donating toward helping Charlie in that the parents should have the authority to make the decisions regarding their son.

              Moschella makes an excellent point in that it is only the parents who are most directly affected by the fate of their son, and thus it should be for them to decide what that fate should be. The parents should be the one to make the necessary decisions regarding their son and his health seeing as they are the ones who brought him into this world, pay for the medical procedures, and would have to live with the void of losing him should that be the case. Due to the parents being fully capable of making said decisions, and as the courts have no reason to suspect the current or future treatments are leaving Charlie in pain, the parents should have the right reserved to make the decisions they believe is best for their family.

              As Moschella also noted, the only way parental rights concerning the well-being of their children should be taken away is if there is evidence of abuse of neglect going on. I do agree in that if neglect or abuse is suspected that the courts retain the right to taken parental rights away, and make the decision they feel to be best .In Charlie’s case, this is not happening and thus the parents should reserve their parental rights.

              Charlie’s case has touched many people worldwide, and this case has the power to shape how further decisions regarding parental rights in children’s medical cases are withheld, especially in Europe.

Disagree with his Tweets? Prepare to be Trumped!

              President Trump is easily the most outspoken government figure on social media America has seen. Trump uses his personal Twitter account far more frequently than the official POTUS account, and often is seen engaging in Twitter fights with regular citizens and celebrities alike. While Trump’s use of social media is perfectly legal (due to the First Amendment), it is something American citizens were not used to, especially in comparison to his predecessor.

              The LosAngeles Times published an editorial today discussing Trump’s use of the block feature Twitter offers to prohibit disruptive users from accessing personal pages. It has been seen that Trump subsequently blocks people who openly oppose him, usually occurring after a heated argument. The Times calls Trump “childish”, an insult he is deserving of.  It is a new issue Americans are dealing with when their President posts controversial things, or in some cases insensitive or racist, and then prohibits opponents from commenting. America has never had a chief executive so technologically active, or one that infringes on political opposition.

              The author of this article is truly passionate about this debate, calling Trump childish, petty, and mocking his use of CAPITAL LETTERS. The author is clearly aiming at the younger generation who are active on and familiar with various social media outlets, namely Twitter. Although the older generations of American citizens certainly hear about what their President says, the younger generations tend to be the ones viewing firsthand and engaging in word battles with the President. It seems that the author is credible to write an editorial about Trump’s Twitter use considering their extensive knowledge of the site, and the ins and outs of proper social media etiquette. They seem to be rather disgruntled over Trump blocking people – any guessers that they themselves have been blocked by our nation’s leader? However, for someone writing this editorial, they do give Trump some brownie points in discussion over the plaintiffs in a court case suing him for blocking them claiming their First Amendment rights are being withheld. I would have expected them to side completely with the plaintiffs, but they admit the plaintiffs argument is debatable considering there are ways around being blocked to still access the tweets. This middle ground aids in creating a less of a bias towards anti-Trump, and allows readers to formulate their own opinions.

              I agree completely with this article, as it claims Trump shouldn’t block people for disagreeing with his statements if he is going to use Twitter as a means of engaging with the public. Trump, as our political leader and an expert Tweeter, should be able to handle the backlash some of his commentary brings. If he is not able to handle constructive criticism, opposition, or differing viewpoints, should be really be expressing his views for the millions of people on Twitter to see? Furthermore, should he really be leading the land of the free if he can’t support his claims, agree to disagree, or acknowledge other opinions?   

AHCA/BCRA is not A-Okay

              Ever since President Trump has stepped into the Oval Office, and even before then, he has worked to repeal the Affordable Care Act set up by his predecessor Barack Obama. His original Senate bill was met with an overwhelming amount of opposition leading to tweaks and changes to be made. As of July 14, 2017, the New York Times maintains governors on both political sides are still not pleased with the changes.

              Throughout the article entitled Governors From Both Political Parties Denounce Senate Obamacare Repeal Bill, various governors both Democrat and Republican continue to criticize the new Senate bill for continuing to harm the people Obamacare has helped. Governor Sandoval of Nevada, one of the most pivotal figures in this debate, maintains his stance of opposition to the bill despite lobbying attempts by federal officials and the President himself. Conservatives, moderates, Democrats, and Republicans alike are not buying Trump and Pence’s argument that repealing Obamacare is “rescuing Medicaid for the long run.”

              The health care debate is crucial to be informed about due to the affect Medicaid and Obamacare has on the population. People without insurance, or forced to purchase their own, are intrigued by the quality and cost of care provided by these provisions.  This article is worth reading as it shows how people of different opinions are coming together on an issue in order to protect the citizens of this country.