A few weeks ago, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) accounted that he would not be running for re-election in 2018; today, another Republican Senator, Jeff Flake of Arizona, has said the same:
Flake then disclosed that his rationale for leaving was due to his distaste for the current president and that he "...[would] not be complicit" in associating with the president and his agenda. There's just one problem: Flake, along with the aforementioned Corker, has regularly voted to advance the president's agenda. The words of both Senators are great but their actions say otherwise; until they start to vote against anything that would help the president, their words are hollow.
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Arizona. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 October 2017
Sunday, 16 October 2016
Upset in Utah
Utah last voted for a Democratic presidential candidate in 1964, when it joined the rest of the nation except for the South and Arizona in firmly rejecting Barry Goldwater in favor of Lyndon B. Johnson. Since then, however, it has not only voted Republican but has done so with strong majorities and is often among the top three most Republican regions in the United States. This year, however, might be different. Meet Evan McMullin:
The Republican candidate in this election is polling poorly in Utah - to the point where the polls have suggested that he and Hillary Clinton are running even in the state. This is thanks to his unpopularity among Mormon voters, who object to his rhetoric and overall obnoxious behavior (as well as his criticism of Mitt Romney, who is popular in the state), and because both Evan McMullin and, to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson are drawing support away from him:
McMullin, a Utah native and former CIA operations officer, launched an independent campaign after being dissatisfied with the current Republican nominee. He is running as a conservative, hence why he is drawing support from Republican voters, to allow people with right-leaning views to have a better choice that the current nominee, whom he strongly criticizes.
While McMullin's chances of winning outside Utah are non-existent, statistician Nate Silver suggested a way that he could win the election if a victory from him in Utah caused both main party candidates to fail to reach 270 electoral votes:
Evidently, I do not support McMullin's policies. However, I support his willingness to take a stand and put himself up as a candidate rather than whine about yet still support the Republican nominee, as so many others have done. If Clinton wins Utah, she'd be the first Democrat in over 50 years to do so. If McMullin wins, he'll be the first third-party candidate to wins electoral votes since 1968. Either of them emerging victorious in Utah would send a clear message that the hate-filled rhetoric coming from the Republicans is not acceptable.
The Republican candidate in this election is polling poorly in Utah - to the point where the polls have suggested that he and Hillary Clinton are running even in the state. This is thanks to his unpopularity among Mormon voters, who object to his rhetoric and overall obnoxious behavior (as well as his criticism of Mitt Romney, who is popular in the state), and because both Evan McMullin and, to a lesser extent, Gary Johnson are drawing support away from him:
McMullin, a Utah native and former CIA operations officer, launched an independent campaign after being dissatisfied with the current Republican nominee. He is running as a conservative, hence why he is drawing support from Republican voters, to allow people with right-leaning views to have a better choice that the current nominee, whom he strongly criticizes.
While McMullin's chances of winning outside Utah are non-existent, statistician Nate Silver suggested a way that he could win the election if a victory from him in Utah caused both main party candidates to fail to reach 270 electoral votes:
Evidently, I do not support McMullin's policies. However, I support his willingness to take a stand and put himself up as a candidate rather than whine about yet still support the Republican nominee, as so many others have done. If Clinton wins Utah, she'd be the first Democrat in over 50 years to do so. If McMullin wins, he'll be the first third-party candidate to wins electoral votes since 1968. Either of them emerging victorious in Utah would send a clear message that the hate-filled rhetoric coming from the Republicans is not acceptable.
Tuesday, 1 September 2015
Two dismissive responses that need to go
I propose that the two following terms be eradicated from the vocabulary, except for educational purposes:
"Butthurt"
"IT'S JUST A JOKE!
Both terms are often obnixously used to dismiss people who are complaining about something, such as a stereotype-ridden joke that is directed at a particular demographic group. For example, take a joke that mocks bad driving in Arizona or the supposed "surrender tendencies" of the French; if Arizonans or French people object, other people disruptively pop up saying "stop being so butthurt" or "it's not offensive, it's just a joke!". No...if someone finds a joke offensive, the correct course of action is to apologise; it's fine to clarify that you intended to be humorous as long as you give a sincere apology.
Evidently, "it's just a joke" is solely used to put down people who object to a particular joke but I've witnessed "butthurt" be used outside the boundaries of humour. A theoretical example of this would be someone calling my post evidence of my being butthurt over the word butthurt. Another example would be pedestrians being told to "stop being butthurt" about cyclists hitting them. The word is used whether or not the complaint is valid.
I also argue that butthurt contains veiled offense and shaming towards people who engage in
certain sex acts, which should not be shamed provided that they occur
between consenting adults. Unfortunately, people who believe such acts are shameful behaviour would regard it as further justification for use of the word.
To summarise: I regard "Butthurt" and "It's just a joke!" to be rude, trolling and dismissive responses used to silence complaints, and such responses need to stop. If you consider a complaint to be unjustified, say so in a constructive manner.
Thoughts on this?
Thoughts on this?
Wednesday, 8 January 2014
The third Tuscon anniversary
It's hard to believe that it's been three years to the date that the Tuscon shooting took place, when nineteen people, including Arizona House Representative Gabrielle Giffords, were shot. Six people died and Giffords barely survived a shot to her head, a shot that, to this day, gives her suffering.
What has been done to prevent a tragedy like the one in Arizona from happening again? Nothing, it seems. Despite the vast majority of Americans and National Rifle Association members supporting greater background checks on guns (when my family and I were living in the United States, the Democrats, Republicans and Independents we met all supported them, too, and we lived in an area where almost everybody owned a gun), a bill that would have increased said checks failed in the Senate. In addition, despite all the calls that were made to help address mental health problems, nothing has been done about that, either.
It's a shame that paranoia over a potential repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is preventing anything from being done, even something as simple as educating people about violence or increasing awareness of mental health problems. I don't think that Second Amendment supporters even have anything to fear, for few American politicians, if any, would ever vote for an outright ban on guns. The Second Amendment itself will not get repealed anytime in the near or foreseeable future: To introduce a new amendment with the purpose of repealing another, the state legislatures of three-quarters of the states would need to approve it...and that's just not going to happen against the Second Amendment.
I once again made the mistake of reading the comments section of a Tuscon shooting-related article. I had foolishly hoped that people would perhaps pay their respects to all the victims and their families, given that it's been three years since the shooting, but instead it was a hate-filled thread with nothing but anger being directed at Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. I found it both infuriating and upsetting.
What has been done to prevent a tragedy like the one in Arizona from happening again? Nothing, it seems. Despite the vast majority of Americans and National Rifle Association members supporting greater background checks on guns (when my family and I were living in the United States, the Democrats, Republicans and Independents we met all supported them, too, and we lived in an area where almost everybody owned a gun), a bill that would have increased said checks failed in the Senate. In addition, despite all the calls that were made to help address mental health problems, nothing has been done about that, either.
It's a shame that paranoia over a potential repeal of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is preventing anything from being done, even something as simple as educating people about violence or increasing awareness of mental health problems. I don't think that Second Amendment supporters even have anything to fear, for few American politicians, if any, would ever vote for an outright ban on guns. The Second Amendment itself will not get repealed anytime in the near or foreseeable future: To introduce a new amendment with the purpose of repealing another, the state legislatures of three-quarters of the states would need to approve it...and that's just not going to happen against the Second Amendment.
I once again made the mistake of reading the comments section of a Tuscon shooting-related article. I had foolishly hoped that people would perhaps pay their respects to all the victims and their families, given that it's been three years since the shooting, but instead it was a hate-filled thread with nothing but anger being directed at Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly. I found it both infuriating and upsetting.
Tuesday, 16 October 2012
Scholastic Student Vote
For the past couple of weeks the polls for the presidential election in the United States have gone haywire. Given both the abundance of polls and how President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney are continually switching back and forth in swing states and in the national popular vote, no one really knows whether to trust any of the polls or not. Do we really need yet another poll?
The results of the Scholastic Student Poll were released today, and 51% of the poll's respondent's chose to re-elect Obama, with 45% going to Romney, and remaining 4% going to other candidates. They predicted that Obama would win all of his 2008 states minus Indiana and Virginia, but would pick up Arizona and South Carolina. Only young people below the age of 18 could participate in the vote.
Why is this vote significant? After all, who cares what kids think...right? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the result: the Scholastic Student Vote has correctly predicted the outcomes of 16 of the past 18 elections. The only two they got wrong were 1948 and 1960 - backing Thomas E. Dewey and Richard Nixon over the victors in each election; neither of these are surprising given how the polls showed that Harry S. Truman was supposed be defeated in 1948, and the 1960 election was incredibly close with John F. Kennedy winning only 0.2% more of the popular vote over Nixon.
I am glad that the vote does spark young peoples' interest in politics; with the way adults often behave, I'm inclined to trust kids more - in a variety of circumstances! Will the Scholastic Student Vote correctly predict the results for the seventeenth time? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
The results of the Scholastic Student Poll were released today, and 51% of the poll's respondent's chose to re-elect Obama, with 45% going to Romney, and remaining 4% going to other candidates. They predicted that Obama would win all of his 2008 states minus Indiana and Virginia, but would pick up Arizona and South Carolina. Only young people below the age of 18 could participate in the vote.
Why is this vote significant? After all, who cares what kids think...right? I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the result: the Scholastic Student Vote has correctly predicted the outcomes of 16 of the past 18 elections. The only two they got wrong were 1948 and 1960 - backing Thomas E. Dewey and Richard Nixon over the victors in each election; neither of these are surprising given how the polls showed that Harry S. Truman was supposed be defeated in 1948, and the 1960 election was incredibly close with John F. Kennedy winning only 0.2% more of the popular vote over Nixon.
I am glad that the vote does spark young peoples' interest in politics; with the way adults often behave, I'm inclined to trust kids more - in a variety of circumstances! Will the Scholastic Student Vote correctly predict the results for the seventeenth time? We'll just have to wait and see what happens.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Gabrielle Giffords (follow-up)
On the one year anniversary of the Tuscon shooting, I wrote a post about Gabrielle Giffords (Rep. D-AZ). Among what I wrote was the following:
"Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did."
Giffords announced yesterday that she would be resigning this week to concentrate on her recovery. As I said before, personally I thought it would be great for to remain as a representative, but I knew it would likely impede her health if she had to face the stress of another election so soon. However, despite her stating that she is going to step down, Giffords has also said that she does want to return to public service one day.
Here is her recent video:
After watching the video, I am still truly amazed at how well Giffords has improved...and I am again glad that she has not lost her brilliant smile. I hope she will return to Congress one day, but for now, it seems that the best course of action for her is to rest and recover.
"Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did."
Giffords announced yesterday that she would be resigning this week to concentrate on her recovery. As I said before, personally I thought it would be great for to remain as a representative, but I knew it would likely impede her health if she had to face the stress of another election so soon. However, despite her stating that she is going to step down, Giffords has also said that she does want to return to public service one day.
Here is her recent video:
After watching the video, I am still truly amazed at how well Giffords has improved...and I am again glad that she has not lost her brilliant smile. I hope she will return to Congress one day, but for now, it seems that the best course of action for her is to rest and recover.
Monday, 9 January 2012
Gabrielle Giffords
Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of the Tuscon shooting in Arizona, where an assassination attempt was made on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (Rep. D-AZ) at a public event while she met with her constituents. Six other people were killed in the shooting, and Giffords herself was seriously wounded when she suffered a gunshot wound to the head. Fortunately, the shooter was prevented by the crowd from killing or injuring any more people.
It was the morning of the 9th of January when I found out, and I clearly remember the moment when I first heard about what had happened. We had just spent a night in a new house, and I was tuning my radio: I caught some news on one of the stations to hear that Giffords had been shot in her head, and was not likely to survive her wounds. I was shocked, as Giffords was not someone whom I had expected to have such a tragedy happen to them. I originally learnt about her in 2009, and ultimately came to have respect for her; she was among the politicians I hoped would be re-elected in 2010, and I was delighted to hear that she had been.
She had overcome a difficult re-election...only to be shot in the head two months later. The prognosis was bleak at first: direct gunshots to the head are rarely survivable (from what I have read the chances of survival are about 5%), and less so when fired at point-blank range as what happened to Giffords. However, she was incredibly lucky with where the bullet hit her: from what I understand, if the bullet had been even just slightly away from its angle of entry into her head, she would have been paralyzed or killed.
Even though Giffords survived the shot and was treated for it in time, she did receive brain damage: her vision, speech, movement, and reading/writing abilities have all been seriously affected; still, her recovery has been astounding, and has exceeded expectations. Her comprehension is still intact, and she has not lost her personality nor the bright, unique smile that she is known for. In some videos I watched about her recovery during the time of her first interview since the shooting, it was said that she was aware of and could understand everything going on around her; she also knew what she wanted to say to people, but had trouble saying it. I did find it upsetting to see the juxtaposition of her giving speeches to crowds with her having trouble speaking, but at the same time it was encouraging to see her improving from her injury.
My respect for Giffords has increased since the shooting, and her strength and courage throughout the whole ordeal have both been extraordinary. However, I have also been impressed with her husband, Mark Kelly, for his support of her through it all and being by her side most of the time. I thought it was remarkable that he was willing to forgo commanding one of the final space shuttle missions to stay with her until she convinced him to complete the mission.
Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did. Regardless of what she ultimately chooses to do, I am glad that her recovery has been phenomenal and that she is still steadily improving: I wish her and her family the best.
It was the morning of the 9th of January when I found out, and I clearly remember the moment when I first heard about what had happened. We had just spent a night in a new house, and I was tuning my radio: I caught some news on one of the stations to hear that Giffords had been shot in her head, and was not likely to survive her wounds. I was shocked, as Giffords was not someone whom I had expected to have such a tragedy happen to them. I originally learnt about her in 2009, and ultimately came to have respect for her; she was among the politicians I hoped would be re-elected in 2010, and I was delighted to hear that she had been.
She had overcome a difficult re-election...only to be shot in the head two months later. The prognosis was bleak at first: direct gunshots to the head are rarely survivable (from what I have read the chances of survival are about 5%), and less so when fired at point-blank range as what happened to Giffords. However, she was incredibly lucky with where the bullet hit her: from what I understand, if the bullet had been even just slightly away from its angle of entry into her head, she would have been paralyzed or killed.
Even though Giffords survived the shot and was treated for it in time, she did receive brain damage: her vision, speech, movement, and reading/writing abilities have all been seriously affected; still, her recovery has been astounding, and has exceeded expectations. Her comprehension is still intact, and she has not lost her personality nor the bright, unique smile that she is known for. In some videos I watched about her recovery during the time of her first interview since the shooting, it was said that she was aware of and could understand everything going on around her; she also knew what she wanted to say to people, but had trouble saying it. I did find it upsetting to see the juxtaposition of her giving speeches to crowds with her having trouble speaking, but at the same time it was encouraging to see her improving from her injury.
My respect for Giffords has increased since the shooting, and her strength and courage throughout the whole ordeal have both been extraordinary. However, I have also been impressed with her husband, Mark Kelly, for his support of her through it all and being by her side most of the time. I thought it was remarkable that he was willing to forgo commanding one of the final space shuttle missions to stay with her until she convinced him to complete the mission.
Now a year on, it still is not known what Giffords will decide on when it comes to her political career. I would love for her to remain in Congress, but I understand that it would probably put additional stress on her if she did. Regardless of what she ultimately chooses to do, I am glad that her recovery has been phenomenal and that she is still steadily improving: I wish her and her family the best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)