Donald J. Trump for President?

Donald Trump is a master of media exposure. The Trump seems to always have his name in the media whether it is his television show, The Apprentice, or his potential presidential bid. Since he has become a potential presidential candidate he has been nothing but pure entertainment. In the past month Trump has been trumpeting the tune about President Obama and his birth certificate.

On April 25^th, the Trump went further in his smear campaign against Obama by saying that he was too dumb for the Ivy League. It’s hard to take an objective stance on this issue without seeing his admission records from Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, but something tells me there is no conspiracy theory here, as much as I’d like there to be.

Can the Trump win the presidency after making all of this noise? He certainly didn’t endear himself well to the CPAC audience.

The Trump has the cash needed to fund a political campaign. According to Forbes the Trump is worth $2.7 billion. Senator John McCain raised $368 million but lost. President Obama raised $745 million during his presidential campaign, so money is not a problem for the Trump.

The question then becomes what can stop the Trump from trumping Obama if he receives the Republican bid? I believe only one person can stop the Trump from winning.

Trump.

Trump’s aggressive, matter-of-fact demeanor won’t win him any allies, especially comedian Jerry Seinfeld. Needless to say Jerry will not be contributing to his campaign should he win the primary.

And this isn’t Trump’s only instance of insensitivity. Trump recently responded to Gail Collins in the New York Times. I think it is refreshing when someone drops the sugarcoat and just says it like it is. Could you imagine if Obama became fed up with Fox News and blasted them in a letter like Trump did to this editor?

As a Republican I have mixed feelings about him. As a foreign diplomat he would scare the hell out of a lot people. I’d be interested to see how he reacts to someone like Vladimir Putin. Both the Trump and Putin are exceptionally stubborn, plus Putin is one of the shadiest prime ministers in power today. Imagine if the Trump ever got on Putin’s bad side. If nuclear war was ever possible, I believe those two responsible for it.

One thing I have to say about the Trump is that he can turn any situation into a success. Today Obama released his full birth certificate, and Trump says he is proud that he could make Obama show it. Only Trump can turn tin cans into gold like this, which is what he’s been doing since the 80’s.

Overall, the Trump presents an interesting quagmire. He, for lack of a better word, has the balls to stand up and say anything. He wouldn’t pussyfoot around an issue; instead he’d mount a full frontal attack. I would think he would do his best to solve our country’s economic issue by helping businesses with tax breaks and other business friendly legislation.

His downside is his lack of political experience. I’d be more inclined to vote for him if he ever held a political office. I don’t know how much this hurts him in the eyes of America, but I could see him becoming president in the 2016 election after becoming a congressman or governor first.

Is the Tea Party willing to support Romney?

The 2012 Presidential Election is still very, very far away.  Even the primaries are close to a year from now.  Yet, for better or worse, the 2012 Election is already dominating political discussion, and I’ll admit, I’m one of those people that always fall prey to the hype that surrounds the election.  It’s fascinating to see how the election progresses, how the issues evolve, and especially how the individual campaigns shape up.  It’s an addicting two-year long political drama.

Realistically, there’s no absolutely clear front runner for the Republican field, but barring any surprise announcement or dark horse candidate really catching steam (N.J. Gov. Christie, for example), the field of candidates has probably been pretty established.

The general  discussion so far has been that there’s a rift in the party between those on the far right and the Tea Party and those more aligned to the center.  Many on the further end of the spectrum prefer a candidate like Huckabee  or Bachmann who better represent their ideals, while those more towards the middle feel candidates like Romney and Pawlenty have more of a chance of beating President Obama.  

On one hand, the GOP wants to elect the candidate with the best possibility of beating an incumbent President, yet there’s a strong fear that a candidate like Romney (whose healthcare reform in Massachusetts is considered to have been the model for Obama’s national plan) would make the far right factions feel disconnected and angry, possibly throwing support behind a third candidate or not voting at all.

Just recently, Romney had an impressive showing in a New Hampshire poll, as the only Republican candidate that would beat Obama.  If this is a start of a national trend, is Romney starting to gain support from the Tea Party?

An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 70 percent of Tea Party voters would favor Romney, and he actually beat out Huckabee and Palin.  The issue of “Romney-care” is a big one for sure, but its beginning to seem like it’s not going to be the deal breaker for the Tea Party as was previously thought.

Could this be the start of a true front runner emerging? Or are we still in for some surprises?

The Budget Debate

On April 14th Rep. Tom Graves (R-GA-09) went on MSNBC to defend his position on the budget debate, and aside from the standard Republican rethoric, the false claim that taxes are too high and keep getting higher, he also belives Obama started class warfare. 

Graves was referencing Obama's April 13th speech from George Washington University where he revealed to America his apparently divisive opinion that when poor Americans are taxed harder than rich, something is amiss. 

It's not much of a mystery to those who do a bit of fact checking, which apparently Graves is not a fan of, that taxes are lower than they have been in 50 years.  This is especially true for the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans. 

But someone has to pay for things like Medicare, Medicade and Social Security.  Someone has to pay for two and a half wars.  Someone has to pay for roads and buses, cops and firefighters and teachers.  And slashing and burning the salaries and payouts of state funded workers and programs is, for some reason, the only foreseeable way Republicans can find to solve the budget problem. 

They have also somehow turned raising taxes on the rich into a socialist agenda, making the patriotic thing to do carving out as much from the public sector and middle/lower class as possible. 

But Republicans are certain about one thing.  We should never punish the rich, and especially Wall Street, for their success. 

After all, according to Graves, none of our current debt and economic stagnation can be contributed to Wall Street.  None.  It's all high spending on things like middle school teacher health benefits, and making sure another generation of Americans is able to retire. 

Anyone who says otherwise is just conducting class warfare.

This is not intended to be a factual post

Every once in a while, we are treated with a political gaffe that explodes in the media, quickly becoming the popular, fashionable, and overexposed joke of the day.  Gerald Ford tripping, George W. Bush choking on a pretzel, pretty much anything Joe Biden has every said, the list could go on forever.

Sometimes, these gaffes are harmless, the jokes about them are funny, and no real damage is done.  We forget about the mistakes, and they quickly become a thing of the past.

One of the most recent gaffes however, is a much more alarming and perhaps terrifying sign of what’s happened to debate in the U.S. Congress.

While arguing for the removal of  funding for Planned Parenthood from the federal budget, Senator Jon Kyl from Arizona, claimed that “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does” is abortions.

Pretty alarming statistic, that’s for sure.  Only it’s not true.

It turns out that the number is only 3 percent, and when Kyl’s office was reached for comment, the statement put out read that Kyl’s argument “not intended to be a factual statement.”

Of course, when The Daily Show and The Colbert Report heard of this, they struck comedy gold.  Stephen Colbert has even started a topic on twitter #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement with posts such as “Jon Kyl has a shrine to Scooter from the Muppet Show” and “everything you would only do in the privacy of your own home, Jon Kyl prefers to do on a subway car.”

Since Colbert started the topic, it’s blown up on Twitter, with thousands of users joining in.

The argument could be made that it’s absolutely disgusting that a politician can state wrong information on the Senate floor, and later, instead of offering a correction, only say it wasn’t ever made to be factual, and in essence, admit to lying while representing the people of Arizona.

But I’m sure there are dozens of other people already making that argument.  Instead, I think it’s much more fascinating to think about how the influence of Twitter will affect the situation, and future ones like it. We now have a way for the public to hold onto this remark and make it last longer than usual late night joke cycle lasts.

Just as we’ve seen social media be a huge influence in recent revolutions and political uprisings, we could be starting to see how social media can be used to keep current politicians in check.  No longer will a politician be able to hope no one catches a mistake, or that a gaffe or error will fade with time.  A screw up, an ignorant remark, or a “not factual” statement now can be broadcasted to millions of people, and those people can comment on it, make their own jokes about it, explain their disgust about it, and the entire world has an opportunity to see it.

Jon Kyl is not only going to have to deal with stories and media mentions about the remark itself, but now he’s also going to have to deal with stories about the issue exploding on Twitter.  This remark is quickly turning into something much bigger than he could have ever expected. Fifteen years ago, this might have been a comment that would disappear fairly quickly.  But that’s not the case anymore, and I guess we have Stephen Colbert to thank for that.

On March 3, Circuit Judge Richard Nielson decided a case in Florida using a fairly unorthodox law, or strictly orthodox depending on your religion. His ruling will consult a source normal to some, foreign to others and frightening to Glenn Beck.

This source is of course Sharia law. Judge Nielson will settle on a lawsuit involving a local mosque, the Islamic Education Center of Tampa, and if parties properly followed the Koran in obtaining an arbitration decision from an Islamic scholar.

Several men filed a lawsuit claiming they were improperly removed from the board of trustees in 2002. Whoever wins the case will control the $2.2 million received from the state in a sale of land for a road project.

To understand why a judge would ever allow a law that is not state or federal, one must understand Sharia law. But what is Sharia law? Sharia, or Islamic, law is the authority in many Muslim countries. Sharia law governs every part of a person’s life for example: marriage, divorce, prayer and murder. Some interpretations of Sharia law justify cruel punishments like beheadings, stonings and honor killings. These interpretations are rare, but according to the United Nations thousands of women die each year in honor killings.

Some countries can balance secularism and Sharia law. In 2008, Britain allowed Sharia law to govern marriage, divorce and inheritance if both parties agreed.

The reason America is so great is because everyone is of a different background yet able to work together under the same law. This land has a set of laws like every other portion of land in this world, and you can’t bend these laws. People should learn to accept that when they are in this country they have to follow our laws.

Our law is what makes America, America. The freedom of speech, religion, petition, press and assembly separate us from countries like Saudi Arabia. If we bend the laws to allow Sharia law, then every other group will want laws bent in their favor. Eventually we won’t know who is subject to which law.

Luckily for Judge Nielson, the mosque didn’t want Sharia law to decide their case. Their attorney Paul Thanasides said, “The mosque believes wholeheartedly in the Koran and its teachings. They certainly follow Islamic law in connection with their spiritual endeavors. But with respect to secular endeavors, they believe Florida law should apply in Florida courts.”