|
|
Post by Olivia Sandquist on Nov 29, 2016 11:17:27 GMT -6
This is a response to Jenna's article. This is very controversial because the cast's comments to Pence could be taken many different ways. However, either way I don't think that Trump needed to get involved. I'm not sure if Pence had told Trump a different story than what actually happened, but if Pence felt that offended he should've handled the situation himself. The comments that the Hamilton cast made probably didn't need to be shared in front of all those people, but Trump took it too far by posting comments on Twitter. The mere fact that he wasn't there to see the whole situation just makes people angry. People don't think it's okay to make accusations about something if they don't know the real story.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen McDaniel on Nov 30, 2016 10:22:01 GMT -6
In response to Misty's article
After reading the article, I believe that Donald Trump needs to calm down. There have been past examples of winning presidency without the popular vote, but Trump acts as if doesn't. I understand wanting a recount, however, he has already won presidency and there's no need to further prove that he had won. The only thing coming out of a recount is something that we already know, a waste of money, and a waste of everyone's time. I feel that if there was any illegal voting, there would have been way more media coverage on the issue, however the article stated that there was no evidence of illegal votes. In my personal opinion, I think Trump should stay clear of social media and let someone else handle it for him. He has said several questionable things on Twitter, and these tweets featured in the article are just a few.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nolan Delanoit on Nov 30, 2016 21:19:28 GMT -6
This is in response to Misty's article. I believe that this recount can be a useful tool but is also unnecessary act. In the way that it was useful is by showing the republican and democratic parties that there was no tampering with the election. It is also Unnecessary in the fact that it was a waste of time and money on something that was already decided. In my personal opinion is that it was unnecessary because how complex our voting system is and how the vote was decided weeks ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jenna Jones on Dec 4, 2016 19:45:44 GMT -6
This is a response to Misty's article. I don't see the purpose of Trump making claims the election has illegal votes when he already won. Making claims without evidence to back it up is something that doesn't look good on anyone, especially the future president. I am curious what his claims were based off of if there was no evidence. I do think a recount is unnecessary because of the cost and time it takes to complete a recount. I am confused why the green party is pushing the hardest for a recount when there is no way that they would win. I wonder if Trump plans on changing the way of the voting systems when he begins his presidency if he thinks it is inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dallas Cretsinger on Dec 5, 2016 22:43:24 GMT -6
www.cnn.com/2016/12/05/politics/donald-trump-china-taiwan-clash/index.htmlthis article is about trump having a call with tjwan after the U.S has had no contact in certain issues with them since the 70's. This is being looked at as a poke too China since these two country's have had numerous . In trumps defense is that he feels like it is okay to take a congratulations call if the government was already make million dollar deals with them for weapons
|
|
|
|
Post by Mikala Oehler on Dec 11, 2016 14:13:53 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Kelsey Cole on Dec 11, 2016 19:25:49 GMT -6
Donald Trump on less frequent intelligence briefings www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-on-less-frequent-intelligence-briefing-i-get-it-when-i-need-it/This is an article about Donald Trump defending his choice to not receive daily briefings. He states that he does not need to receive intelligence briefings everyday because he's a smart person, therefore he does not need to hear the same thing everyday. He states that he only needs to know when something new happens. He also says that if something new does happen he'll be available in a minutes notice. In my personal opinion I agree with former CIA director Leon Panetta. I think that Trumps choice of not receiving a daily briefing is unusual. I think that to be able to do the best for our country he needs to Know exactly what is going on everyday, even if it is almost the same thing everyday. |
|
|
|
Post by Olivia Sandquist on Dec 11, 2016 20:35:18 GMT -6
This is a response to Kelsey's article.
I also agree with the CIA's director. I believe that a daily briefing is a necessary part of the president's day whether the information is the same or not. It should be Trump's job to know what is happening in the country every single day, and if the information is the same, then maybe those issues need to be addressed faster. There is always going to be something new happening in the country, so a briefing each day would be an easy tool to make sure there are no major problems that need immediate attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordy Nielsen on Dec 12, 2016 13:31:07 GMT -6
To respond to Kelsey's article, I believe Trump needs to hear information old or new every single day. He has already offended some people in the United States with some of his tweets on Twitter and statements. I think Trump needs to make sure he is thinking before he speaks. Hearing information everyday won't hurt Trump at all. I know personally that I can't remember everything going on every single day and I'm sure as president, Trump also cannot remember anything. The daily briefing is a good necessity everyday for our president. Obviously we all want our president to know what is going on in the day and around the world. I would want a well-educated president, rather than one that would just assume he/she knew everything. I also agree with the CIA's director that Trump needs a daily briefing everyday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spencer Roach on Dec 18, 2016 17:17:48 GMT -6
www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/12/17/harry-reid-leaves-senate-legacy-help-trump/95432642/Harry Reid leaves Senate with a legacy that will help Trump. Reid, who was the majority leader at the time, used a parliamentary move called the "nuclear option" to change an almost 40-year-old Senate rule. This change meant now the Senate needs only a simple majority of 51 votes rather than a super-majority of 60 to proceed to confirmation votes on Cabinet secretaries, agency directors and judges, except for the Supreme Court. Reid who leaves this legacy is glad he did so, even though he is a Democrat and this change now will help President Trump who is a Republican. Personally I like this change because it means a little less work in trying to approve something for the public. Throughout Reids 12 years as Senate he was able to get the approval of the Affordable Care Act in 2010 — the "Obamacare" law that the Republicans are not very big fans of. Also the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009, an $800 billion an urging bill that needed to lift the country out of recession by creating jobs repairing roads, bridges and highways while also expanding unemployment benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stephen McDaniel on Dec 19, 2016 22:46:05 GMT -6
In response to Spencer's article
After reading the article, I see that Harry Reid butts heads with Donald Trump a bit. He changed a 40 year old Senate rule and used it in the Democrats favor; However, the Republicans took office. Trump can now use this rule in his favor in voting Cabinet secretaries, agency directors and judges. One thing that I did find interesting was the fact that, despite not being in favor of Trump, he did say that, "But what was fair for President Obama is fair for President Trump." It's interesting that he opposes Trump, but mentions something positive about it being fair. This Senate rule change is definitely interesting, just because there are 9 less required votes needed, which makes big impact now that 60 votes aren't required.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel Eshuis on Dec 20, 2016 10:41:14 GMT -6
In response to Spencer's article
Harry Reid may "butt heads" with Trump, but he also seems to respect him. Reid says that if he himself was able to make it out of the poverty he grew up in, why shouldn't anyone else be able to make it big? He is showing a bit of sportsmanship by not deamonizing his opponent like everyone else seems to be doing. He respects that the Republicans have taken over office, though he may not agree with it.
He made it easier for Obama to pass laws and, though it might be frustrating that Trump is the next president, he says that if it was fair for Obama, it is fair for Trump. He doesn't majorly put Trump down or anything like that, but, like I said before, he aknowledges that his choice lost and respects it. He's not ranting in frustration, he's not working to reverse the descision to make passing laws easier, he is simply commenting that he doesn't support Trump, but he believes what was fair for Obama is fair for the next president.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alec Schafer on Dec 22, 2016 12:04:48 GMT -6
In response to Spencer's article
What Reid did despite his thoughts on Trump is a good thing to keep everything fair. The Democrats had an advantage from this policy, so it is fair that other party's have this same privilege. He seems like a good guy rising from nothing and making a success of him self and then turning around and despite that he views trump as a "spoiled brat" and giving him the power that he has earned from the outcome of the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chase Van Blair on Dec 22, 2016 13:37:26 GMT -6
In response to Spencer's article, I believe this bill was the right thing to do. In government neither side should have an advantage, if one side has more power over the other, the whole thing could topple down. It is good that Reid could look past his political views to do something good for the government, even if the candidate he didn't approve of will be the first one to use his new rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by Katelyn McNaughton on Dec 22, 2016 13:48:13 GMT -6
In Response to Spencer's article
When reading about Harry Reid, it surprised me that one person has such a big influence on the Senate. I think it shows a lot about Harry Reid himself. He helped with the bill even though he is clearly not a fan of Trump. I think in the end it was a good idea that they changed the bill from a 60 majority to a 51 majority. After 12 years in the Senate, he only regrets one thing, the invasion of Iraq. He helped pass approval of Obamacare which turned out to be a pretty big deal. He obviously has some people that don't agree that he was successful those 12 years but in my opinion he made a positive difference in the Senate.
|
|
