In both cases the political debates were not good over all. The democrats seemed to be conducted a bit better but the questions asked were better to discuss. The Republican canidates seemed to have a more solid in there belifes and what they plan to do. They didn't keep changing what they said based on the crowd or how much cheering they got. The Republican party did seem to start to stab at one another towards the end but there debate kind of fell to very pointless and dumb questions, The Democratic debate did not have that. I feel like if they were there for juset as long they would have the same issue. Nither of these debates would help very much with giving information to help the viwers chose a canidate that they would vote for.
The Power of Political Misinformation was research regarding the fact that under most all cases, when misinformation is presented people will very likely believe it without question if it supports there beliefs, evidence or not. This causes a "snowballing affect" that when misinformation is presented and someone accepts it, it causes them to become more firm in that belief and much harder to change there mind and it becomes much more difficult for them to listen to the correct information. It is more likely that they will shut it out and not listen to it, especially if they don't like it because it doesn't support there view point. Misinformation can be seen everywhere, for instance, it was seen in the last political debate. Many things were said in the debate that were incorrect or skewed but stated as fact. Everything that was said can be easily fact checked and seen if the information given was correct or not. Although this is a common thing among politics there is a way around it. You can start a website or a news channel that states the facts and the facts ONLY. Absolutely NO political bias is shown. Just the who, what, when, were, why, with whom, to whom, and the numbers if applicable. The easier route can be that look at the issue from several different sites or news channels from different biases and the things that they have in common about an issue are the facts. From there you can make your own decision on what you believe.
I read the article for the ban on large cups for “Sugary drinks” because I believe that the government is getting to big for its britches. The article, in short, states that people’s reaction to the ban on large cups was over the top and uncalled for. The article states that the ban was to limit the amounts people where having at one time. There was no regulation on the amount consumed because you could still get up and refill the cup again. This regulation was just to help Americans from making “dumb” health decisions.
I think that this whole article wasn’t thought through very well and has no thoughts for self-responsibility at all. If there is no regulation on how much we can consume, then why have it at all? All that they would be doing is making our lives more difficult, AND diving WAY in to our personal lives in what we are allowed to do. The reasoning people freaked out about this law and did not want it wasn’t as much about the cup sizes as the fact that the law would allow the government access into our personal lives and control that part. Plus, it seemed like the government was trying to be a parent by telling us “No you can’t have the big kid drink because you need to be healthier.” This personally pisses me off along with many other Americans. This is supposed to be a free country where we are supposed to be allowed to do whatever we want with some small restrictions that most laws account for is infringement upon others freedoms. Having laws passed to regulate how much drink we can have at a time is an unnecessary and one “large” (bud dum tsss) step in to our personal lives. If they can do that then it sets of a chain reaction of sorts that will eventually leave us with no freedoms what so ever. We need to stand for our freedoms and rights even in the small things. To all who HATE me at the moment. I want to say that I just made stuff up and I do not actually agree with what was said. I have NO PROBLEM WHAT SO EVER with women being in office and they can do just as good as men. I wrote this blog to try and start fire with some people and see what people would do and see how people think. If fronted with something dumb if people lose there logical thoughts or if they can keep there thoughts and make an opposition in a clam orderly fashion with evidence. I would agree that women are a bit underrepresented in politics, but I think that there are many reasons why they are not. First off Men are proven to think more logically and with more facts than women, although this is not always the case. Men think more logically and fact based, women tend to think more with emotions and feelings. Another good reason why I think men generally make better candidates than women are the "section-by-section" thinking that men have. To better explain this, think of it this way. Men Think like waffles, section by section thinking, to focus on one thing at a time. Women think like spaghetti, thoughts and feelings are all over the place and mixed up. This is why men tend to have the ability to focus more on one thing then the next, not letting outside issues or feelings greatly influencing decision. I do not have problems with women in office, I do think they are a little under represented, I also do believe this is why there are more men than women.
The debate was SUPER long and I was not able to watch the whole thing. It seemed like there wasn't much information to make any kind of informed good choice on who would make a good presidant and who would not. There was a lot of stupid questions that didn't allow for us viewers to get a solid understanding of what each person would do in office. They did cover some good ground in some areas but it was also hard to gage what they were really going to do. There has to be some lies and some out of preportion facts just to sound the best they could. They probably felt pressured to say what the majority wanted to hear.
There are a LOT of political issues to cover. I chose to follow Ben Carson through the political issues.
Ben Carson talked bit about abortion in his talk and on his belifes. I agree with his standing. He hs stated that abortion can not be done after 20 weeks of conseption, and CAN NOT be done out of convenience. While I would have originaly have been way more strict on this there are some rare cases that may need taken care of. I really like his whole point on NO abortions out of convenience. I see abortion as VERY unconstitutional, the consitution gives EVERYONE a right to life. People who are pro-abortion and most everyone on the Liberal side, try to blur the line as to when a baby is a person or not. It has been sientificly proven that babies are far more aware of the out-side world than most people think. As well as (I know I am going to catch fire for this) in the Bible, God says that life starts at the moment of conseption. Go ahead Liberals and Pro-abortionists, try and twist my words and tell me im wrong. If ANYONE can give me hard evedince to disprove the Bible, I will back down from my clame. (hint: no one has ever been able to disprove the Bible in any way for thousands of years.) |
|