Bloomberg vs. Christie

Michael Bloomberg as a politician is known as the 108^th mayor of New York City who stayed in office for three consecutive terms. However, Bloomberg is not only a politician but also a business man and philanthropist who developed the global financial data and media company, Bloomberg L.P. Bloomberg never really had a political career and mainly used his business background and finances to gain office as the mayor. The first time he was elected, he was elected as a Democratic candidate, then changed to a Republican candidate in his next term and then for the last term he ran as an Independent candidate on the Republican line. As mayor of NYC, Bloomberg replaced the school system so that public education was directly ran and controlled by him and his office. He raised the salaries of the teachers and opposed social promotion in school. While trying to reduce NYC’s deficit, Bloomberg increased property taxes and spending and is for decreases taxes on large corporations and businesses. Bloomberg supports abortion rights and the funding of stem cell research and was a strong advocator of decreasing the sale of sweet things and large soft drinks. In my previous post, I blogged about Chris Christie, comparing him to Toomey for 2016 presidential election but now in this post, comparing him to Bloomberg, I cannot really say who is more likely to be elected. Christie doesn’t have great standing with his constituents nor other politicians and Bloomberg doesn’t seem to have enough experience in the political spectrum. With this said, I wouldn’t vote for either of them to be president.

Biden vs. Gillibrand

Joe Biden is famously known as the current vice president under both of Obama’s presidency. Before taking on this large role, Biden was an attorney and was elected to the New Castle County council in 1970. After this, Biden became a senator, where he became a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. Biden also served as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Joe Biden also ran for presidency in 1988 and 2008, but dropped out early in both races. Although he was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, he moved to Delaware early on in life and since then has strong leader, supporter and advocator for Delaware. He has made close connections with his constituents in Delaware which is evident through his daily train rides and has sought to implement laws and rules that will help better Delaware. Biden is known in Congress as one of the poorest members, the senator who says what he wants and a senator who is not all to modest. However, with these characteristics, Biden has consistently been elected into senator and has a close “relationship” with his constituents, which is also due to the fact that he comes from a background that allows him to easily relate to normal everyday people. Biden is a huge supporter of Obamacare seeing it as a good opportunity for Americans to get quality healthcare for lithe expense. Generally speaking, on the issue of education, Biden wants more education, smaller classes, and better pay for the teachers so that they can give better education to the students. On the issue of taxing, Biden is against tax cuts for the rich and wants to increase it for them so it can be used to help the economy. The one and most memorable scandal that Joe Biden was involved in during the1988 presidential race was when he was called on plagiarizing and fabricating his speech. Now, comparing Gillibrand who I wrote about in a previous post, to Biden, I think that Biden is much more likely to be elected to presidency than Gillibrand. Also, I would vote for Biden over Gillibrand because first off, Biden has sway more experience than Gillibrand. Another reason why is because Biden is a “people person” in a sense, he is someone who can relate to the lives of normal working citizens and seems like someone who would be able to make closer connections with not only his constituents but also high-ranking congress and government members. Biden also has more popularity and recognition; more people know his name and his work not only because of the fact that he is the vice president. 

Christie vs. Toomey

Chris Christie is obviously well known not only in New Jersey but all over America; this popularity counts for something. He is the 55^th Republican governor of New Jersey and a very plausible candidate in the upcoming presidential election. Christie started his political career as a volunteer for the gubernatorial campaign of Tom Kean. Afterwards, he became a partner to a Cranford law firm. He served as a Morris county legislator and was appointed as United States Attorney for New Jersey. On the issue of economy in New Jersey, Chris Christie is committed in promoting small businesses, industries and the image of NJ as a good location to do business. Chris Christie talks a lot about freezing certain things to help solve the deficit. He proposed freezing teacher’s pay roll in the New Jersey School system for a year and also freezing the state budget, not raising taxes for anyone. Christie is supports charter schools and is a strong proponent for firing teachers and closing down schools that do not meet requirements. Chris Christie was recently involved in a scandal where he supposedly caused a traffic delay on a highway because of some alteration with a mayor. He has also been involved in other scandals and does not have the greatest credibility with his constituents and other politicians. Comparing Pat Toomey to Chris Christie, I do not think any of them have a good chance in being elected to presidency and also, I would not vote for either of them. To me, they both seem too conservative, too focused on politics and the game. Ultimately, I do not think that they will help the majority of Americans if in fact they do get elected.

Cuomo vs. Gillibrand

Andrew Cuomo is the current 56^th governor of New York who also apart of the Democratic party. Cuomo began his political career working as an assistant district attorney in NYC. He founded the Housing Enterprise for the Less Privileged and was appointed Chairman of the New York City Homeless Commission. Cuomo was also apart of the Clinton Administration as an assistant secretary for Community Planning and Development in the Department of Housing and Urban Development and served as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He was also elected to one term as Attorney General of New York. On the issue of education, Cuomo is strong supporter of Charter schools and wants to increase the Charter school cap from 200 to 460. On the issue of Immigration, Cuomo supports amnesty for people who come to America illegally believing that everyone should be  ensured the same rights. Unlike most other Democrats, Cuomo rejected an increase in tax for the wealthy and wants to put a cap on local property tax. Ultimately, Cuomo is seen as a conservative democratic, but despite this, he has become a strong political figure in New York enforcing and implementing change in New York that other politicians hopelessly promised to do. Apart from the image of a politician person, Cuomo has had the image of a good and committed father to his three daughters. Also, he has become a people person focusing on the homeless and working closer with his constituents. Before all this success and good image, Cuomo’s personal as well as political life seemed all too complicated and close to over. He divorced his wife, had been suspected of cutting funds for programs that supported the homeless and runaway youths. Also during the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy there was a small scandal because the Cuomo administration were said to have taken some of the funds, that were meant to help lower the energy costs of residents affected by the damage. Comparing Cuomo to Gillibrand from my previous post, I think that Cuomo is more likely to get elected. Also, if I were to cast a vote between the two of them, I would vote for Cuomo. Cuomo has made huge strides, changes, improvements and accomplishments in New York. In a city as large and bustling as New York, Cuomo has been able to control and help it, which has proven himself suitable to take on the presidential office more than Gillibrand.

Kelly Ayotte vs. Pat Toomey

Kelly Ayotte is the only Republican junior senate from New Jersey. As a senate, she serves on the Armed Services, Budget, Commerce, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and Aging Committees and is the Ranking Member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness and the Commerce Subcommittee on Aviation Operations. She worked as a law clerk for the New Hampshire Supreme Court before entering private practice. She also worked as a prosecutor for the New Hampshire Department of Justice, and briefly served as the legal counsel to New Hampshire governor Craig Benson, before returning to the Department of Justice to serve as deputy attorney general of New Hampshire. Ayotte served as attorney general of New Hampshire and was mentioned as a possible running mate for Mitt Romney. In Newsmax magazine she was named the most influential woman in the GOP, calling her “an emerging force in Congress.” On the issue of Budget, Ayotte is against pork-barrel projects and wants to advance a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. On the issue of Jobs and Economy, Ayotte believes that creation of large and small businesses will help the economy grow. “She supports common sense, pro-growth policies that encourage private sector innovation and job creation.” Ayotte is against Obamacare but for Ryan Budget: Medicare choice, tax & spending cuts seeing health care to be more effective and affordable when government is not involved.

Pat Toomey is a Republican junior United States Senator for Pennsylvania.  After college, where is got a BA in government study, he worked in Chemical Bank and then Morgan, Grenfeel & Co. Before this, Toomey served as a representative for Pennsylvania’s 15^th congressional district. Toomey’s two main goals when it comes to Jobs and Economy are to “restore economic growth and private-sector job creation in this country and putting our federal government on a sustainable fiscal path.” On the issue of Education, Toomey is strong advocator of Charter schools but believes in providing education to all regardless of parent’s income. On the issue of health care, Toomey wants more transparency in the system decreasing the amount of power the government has in it and giving it mostly to the patients and medical professionals. Toomey has a strong financial standing; on a scale given on Washington post that gave is financial portrait, Toomey is described as wealthier and less aggressive earning way more than an average senate. The only scandal that Toomey is said to be involved in is with the IRS and its scamming of people out of their tax returns. Comparing these two senates, I think that Pat Toomey is most like to be elected and personally I wouldn’t vote for either of them. However, it seems apparent to me that Toomey has more dynamics and presence; known on both a national level as well as local level. In comparison to Ayotee, he seems to have more of a concrete plan to solve certain issues and strong stance on each.

Gillibrand vs. Booker

Kirsten Gillibrand and Cory Booker are both of the Democratic Party. Kirsten Gillibrand serves as the junior United States Senator from New York and Cory Booker serves as the junior United States from New Jersey. Kirsten is focused on several liberal issues such as creating more jobs for people in New York by “increasing lending and cutting taxes for small businesses, making aggressive investments in infrastructure, and transitioning from foreign fossil fuels to an economy powered by clean, American energy” (gillibrand.senate.gov). She also focuses on education in New York; she wants more college opportunities available for students, the implementation of more STEM programs and opportunities and investing more in teachers. Gillibrand is also a big advocator of better and affordable health care, also supporting the Affordable Care Act passed by Obama. She supports tax cuts for the middle class people, is very liberal in immigration acts wanting to help them and provide more opportunities for them and is also pro choice. Previously, Kirsten Gillibrand served in the House of Reps., reserved in the representing New York’s 20th congressional district, from 2007 to 2009. On the other hand, Cory Booker supports economic fairness and security, education for all children, the advancement of women’s right, and promotion of accessible quality health care. On education, Booker is a big advocate on public education and making education more affordable to people of New Jersey. Booker wants more funds put towards planned parenthood to help women and family and is a also pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Cory Booker started is political career as a Newark City Councilor, serves as Newark’s mayor and became the first black senate from New Jersey. He gained a national reputation for his personal involvement in public service, particularly through his use of social media tools such as twitter to connect with constituents. Ultimately, I think that Cory Booker has more of a chance to get elected than Gillibrand, but personally, I would vote for Gillibrand because she has more structured full-out plans than Booker. On her website, she provided and showed more of an understanding of the issue at hand and how to solve with an effective plan.

Brain-Drain: From Nigeria to America

The New York Times article titledMore Africans Enter U.S. Than in Days of Slavery by Sam Roberts starts off by talking about how the numbers of Africans coming into America voluntarily has surpassed the numbers of Africans brought to America through slavery. The article claims that one of the reasons why Africans come to America is “to reclaim the wealth that’s been taken from their countries.” Although, this may be the case for some Africans who come here, most of them do not have this kind of mindset. From my understanding, most Africans or Nigerians, to make a narrower generalization, come to America because of the many opportunities that it offers. An interesting point that this article brought up was that the more Africans immigrate to American the more African-Americas get left behind in the sense of affirmative action and other programs that was meant to help “American-born blacks” to recuperate from slavery times. Colleges admit more Africans to fulfill the affirmative action mandates, leaving African-American students behind and deprived of the opportunities created solely for them. Also, the article talks about how Europe has become “increasingly inhospitable.” This point may have been true in the past, but as of current times, I can truly attest to the fact that more Nigerians immigrate the Europe than America. London has basically become the second home of Nigerians; everything from the music, food, clothing, language, and even culture can easily be found in London. From personal experience, my family originally immigrated to Ireland and can safely say that most of my family resides in several countries in Europe. Also, this article brings up the question of what it means to be black in America. There is an obvious distinction and separation between Africans and African-Americans, but people simply and easily group both races together without realizing their distinct differences. This has proven a problem to not only older Africans but also the younger generations. Many young Africans have sort of an identity-crisis, where they don’t know whether to identify as African or African-American. The pressure that America puts on African youths with its stereotypes forces them to either deny their African-roots or  hold steadfast to it, becoming a strong advocator of Africa and its potentials.  This article touches on the causes and effects of brain-drain not in Africa, but in America. This article does not really develop an answer to whether or not brain-drain can be thoroughly eliminated. However, it emphasizes the fact that there cannot be a proposed solution to this problem because it is not only negatively effecting Africa but also America.

WHY GIVE MERCY?

In the article titled, Mercy in the Justice System by the editorial board, the issue that was addressed was the clemency system that’s prevalent in America’s Justice system. Basically, the clemency system is basically the amount of leniency or “mercy” given to a person when being convicted for a crime. The article points out the fact that “The clemency system…is in a state of collapse.” There are numerous amounts of felons who are stuck in jail for either life sentencing or close to life sentencing for committing crimes that did not necessarily deserve such a sentencing, so the article says. The justice system in America has become less lenient and merciful when it comes to convicting people for their crimes. However, is this really and issue; Why exactly should the justice system give mercy to those who commit crimes? I mean, they are criminals who committed crimes that were against the law and could possible put others in danger or at a lost. Although, this is not what i believe, it is a plausible reasoning. The justice system was created to implement justice into this nation, their job isn’t to pardon people or let people off easily even though they clearly committed a crime. An argument to this position is that, “[the collapse of the clemency system] drove up the prison population 10-fold and filled the jails with young, low-level drug offenders who were confined far longer than their offenses warranted. They also created a large and growing class of felons, who are trapped permanently at the margins of society by postprison sanctions — laws that bar them from jobs and housing, strip them of the right to vote and make it difficult for them to obtain essential documents like driver’s licenses.” with this in mind, it is evident that the clemency system can’t collapse or become in corrupt in anyway. If the clemency system were to fall then tons of people would be incriminated far worse than they needed to be and prisons would just become over-populated. People are quickly denied and deprived of rights that they are endowed to by the state and country. The clemency system should not be looked at as a system that gives unnecessary tolerance to people or as a weak provision to the justice system but rather a part of the justice system that allows actual justice to be implemented. 

TO ALLY WITH IRAN OR NOT?

The article titled, Iran, From Enemy to Ally,  brings up the recent issue about America’s and Iran’s proposal to become an ally. This article points out that despite the fact that America and Iran has not had the best past relationship, they both benefit by coming together. By becoming an ally with Iran, America can help both its economy and Iran’s, the civil war in Syria can be subsided, and they can both fight against Al Qaeda. Also, this article brings up the ally that America has with Saudi Arabia; it states that America doesn’t really need the ally with Saudi Arabia anymore because it does not have as a much to offer as Iran. Despite the fact that a lot of Americans are against this realignment and many Iranians feel the same way, Obama and Rouhani are determined to make it work.

Overall, I do think that America should ally itself with Iran despite its status as a human rights violator and a sponsor of terrorism. By allying with Iran, America can address so many more issues other than economic ones. Like stated in the article, America can make a better initiative and method in solving the civil war in Syria. Also, by America allying with Iran, it can address the issue of human rights and terrorism hands on and work from the root out to ensure better and more efficient solution. America could definitely benefit more from making an ally with Iran than what they may lose if they don’t. Although, Iran is a Muslim nation that has many people who are against America and want America to fall, I feel like if Iran is willing and cooperative and America is ready to also come to an equal level as Iran and not act as the “super-power”, then this alignment could just work. Iran could learn a thing or two from America and America, likewise, could learn some things from Iran.

2ND AMENDMENT FAIL

On December 14th of last year, a terrible incident happened in Newton, Connecticut where 26 young students were killed by a gun man who had broken into the school. Before this tragic incident, there have been countless amounts of school shootings, public shootings, suicide and murders with the use of a firearm. Just last week another school shooting occurred in Colorado, which was surprisingly around the same time as the Sandy Hook shooting and located near the location of the Columbine shooting. The perpetrator of this incident was an eighteen year old student who LEGALLY purchased a gun. Now, the important issue to think about is gun laws. Based on the second amendment of the constitution, it has been interpreted that all citizens have the right to own a gun. Let’s look at the exact words of the constitution:

“…A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Now, common sense would tell any person that this amendment did not mean everyone should “bear arms”, but rather that “a well-regulated militia”, during the necessary time. Since when is the entire population of America a militia?? To put it bluntly, America needs to eliminate guns in their society. If guns are taking out of the hands of normal American citizens, then, there is no doubt that America will be a better place (not to sound cliché). The possession and use of guns should be solely limited to those who necessarily need it like police officers or military officials. The only problem is that America has had this “Right” implemented in its land and upon its people, that it is now viewed as an undeniable right. If the government does eventually take the initiative to make guns illegal for citizens to have, then Americans will easily and quickly say that the government is denying them of their “God-given right” to bear arms. Another issue that comes to mind is the amount of freedom that America has; this is both a great thing that sets America apart from other nations, but it’s also a negative aspect of America (in my opinion). The fact that American citizens have the freedom to purchase and have guns and believe that it is their unalieniable right to do so is really dangerous and irresponsible on the part of the government. With the way guns are easily purchased and used, Americans are not guaranteed safety in their homes, schools, works or anywhere in fact. To sum it all up America needs to change their gun policies and quick, before more and more people of all ages are killed.