The GOP Presidential Debate on CNN

Now, I typically try to refrain from bias and attempt to provide a fair view on topics, but the following quick synopsis of the GOP debate on CNN may contain bias.

After watching the Undercard debate and the primary debate, I noticed one major talking point throughout: war. Even with questions more unrelated to war, it would be brought back up. Also, foreign policy was brought up numerous times, with what seemed to be more than half the of the debate. Now, foreign policy is important, but currently, we face many domestic issues, which were hardly brought up. The issues that were brought up, such as Planned Parenthood, were highly erroneous in their discussions over it. With not a single mention of other issues, such as poverty not mentioned.

What we witnessed here, was yet another debacle of a debate for those concerned with legitimate issues. Hopefully later debates can address this issue, but the focus and push on war by the Republican presidential hopefuls is very concerning.

Ms. Davis and Religious Liberty

Is her first amendment rights being violated?

The short answer: no. Her actions is reminiscent of the infamous segregationist George Wallace, as one New York Times article said," 'In a way, she is out George Wallace-ing George Wallace,' said Howard M. Wasserman..."( http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/04/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0 ). In short, though, as was the case for George, you cannot defy a court order. Also, in the case for her religious liberty, she is unable, and shouldn't be able to, use it as an excuse.

She is a worker for the government, a government which makes promises to the people it administers to - which, recently, has gone to include the legalization of gay marriage; thus, to hold true to this promise, the government, and those that work for it, needs to uphold what it has decreed - otherwise the government will have lied. Therefore, regardless of religious beliefs, in a public, government building, you must treat people as the government commands which you are representative of. If you were in a private church, the story is much different. You would not have to administer a wedding or something of similar nature.

In conclusion, what Ms. Davis is committing has no legal precedent to in order to validate her actions, but plenty of precedent to invalidate it, that she must follow the government's order as a worker of it. It's simple. It's easy. It makes sense.

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Currently, we are seeing heavy opposition towards this deal, and the diplomacy it stands for. Those who go against it do so in fear - fear of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, which is understandable. The problem is: what other choice do we have? Should we go to war? If we do, that will surely cause Iran to pursue a nuclear weapon, and will cost the lives of numerous brave American soldiers. Therefore, why should we support it? There are a number of reasons:
1) War should be a last resort, and diplomacy should always be pursued initially - while maintaining strength in it. We do not need to see a repeat of the League of Nations dealing with Hitler.
2) Unprecedented access is granted within Iran. We will always be able to hold them accountable, and if they break any of the agreements, we can...
3) Snap-back to economic sanctions from before the Nuclear Deal, proving we mean business.
4) Apart from that, the deal lowers the number of centrifuges, waste is shipped out, and Iran will be open, which...
5) Can enable the developed world's ideals to seep in. Very similar to the goal with Cuba, we can re-establish trade, and can slowly attempt to influence Iran's people through our lifestyle. Ultimately, this could lead to a more equal and fair Iran.

These are but a few of several reasons to support this deal, even if the fifth is a bit idealistic and optimistic. Overall, diplomacy should be tried before any other option, because there is nothing to lose with the deal, but everything to gain - should it succeed.

Religion and Government in the United States

Ever since the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1980s, which led to a state of wedlock between the right wing and Christians, we have witnessed a great influence of religion upon our government; you need to only look at the headlines: "In Iowa, Ted Rallies Religious Right"( http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/21/politics/ted-cruz-rally-for-religious-liberty-iowa/index.html ).

So, what does this mean for our country, and the people that it serves? Well, let us first return to what our Founding Fathers thought of religious liberty and freedom, and the history of the founding of our country.

The Protestant Reformation and Landfall in America:

Years after Martin Luther posted his complaints against the Catholic Church, the Christian Faith had greatly diversified itself, with numerous sects developing. Among those were the Calvinists, which resulted in the rise of Puritans in England. They wanted to completely de-catholicize the Church of England, but the slow progress in achieving this goal spurred the growth of Separatists, who vowed to break ties with the Church. King James I did not support this, and planned on harassing them away. These Separatists would go on a pilgrimage, aboard the Mayflower, to America. Having been harassed by the Kind and the Church, they would sow the seeds of religious liberty withing Colonial America.

The Founding Fathers and the First Amendment:

With the seeds sown, the Revolution fought and won, the Articles of Confederation tested and proven too ineffective, it was time for the Constitutional Convention and the long process of adopting a new government. Many of our Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Jefferson or Alexander Hamilton, were deists and followers of Enlightenment ideals. These people were advocated for freedom of religion as well as separation of Church and State, given their experience with the blending between the Church of England and England's government. This was an idea shared among many Americans: the State should not infringe on my personal, religious beliefs nor command how I should adhere to such beliefs. The First Amendment explicitly details this belief, limiting the government from encroaching on a person's freedom.

Modern Day America - A Christian Nation?: 

Having established some basic history of the Founding of this Nation, it leads one to question the claims of America being a Christian Nation. It's easy to see the confusion as to why this has occurred: America was, and still is, a Christian Majority nation, but, while our government has a rule by the majority - it provides provisions for the protection of the minority from the majority (such as a mobocracy), as well as vice versa ( such as an aristocracy). Despite the Christian majority, this does not translate into a Christian Nation.

This claim persists because of how important religion is to many Americans, and the immense influence it can have, whether is be good or bad. As such, utilizing this base of religious Americans, the Moral Majority rose to great influence as these people became politically active. As such, many politicians, primarily on the Right, have come to focus on a large voting bloc - the religious Americans -  for elections, and they secure it by pandering to the crowd's beliefs. This is detrimental to democracy.

Representatives of the people are just that: representatives of every person, whether they be Christian, Muslim, atheist, homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, etc. An issue arises, though, when he or she is only listening to one set of voices, or, in effect, representing one set of people. A democracy cannot function satisfactorily when it is taking such blows.

How do we, The People, Address this Issue?:

Popular Sovereignty. Wield the power of your voice. Go run for office, join in on the political process, watch and observe the government, or, in general, make use of you Constitutional power and the proven remedy to democracy.

It can be achieved. Improve America for everyone.

Voting in America

An Inspection:

Popular Sovereignty: Rule by the People, or where, in America, all political power originates from, at least in theory. It was one of the most influential concepts during the formation of our Union, as proven by the opening of The Constitution: "We the People...", and is what empowers the people to enable a "...government of the people, by the people, for the people." Therefore, this idea of popular sovereignty is a critical one, which needs to be made apparent once again.

In terms of other countries, the U.S. voter turnout is very low comparatively ( http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/06/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/ ), with only 53.6% of the voting age population exercising their power in the 2012 presidential election. Sadly, the picture worsens: using 2008 presidential voter data, The Huffington Post found that the poor are much less likely to turnout to vote ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/voter-turnout-income_n_2790755.html ).

Here are two reasons, among many, as to why this is unsatisfactory:

1) For our democracy to function, we need as many people as possible to participate in the political process, to maintain our republic, to uphold the ideals of our Founding Fathers and of our prior presidents who sought to extend the right to vote to as many deserving people as possible.

2) If and when there are barriers to the voting process, we, as an obligation to our country and her ideals, should make voting as accessible to those who so wish to, so that backbone of democracy - voting - may continue to stand erect and stand against the challenges that threatens our country.

Many solutions have been proposed for this problem, of which I shall list a few and my reasons for the support of them:

1) Make Election Day a national holiday so that all those who seek to exercise their power, has every opportunity to do so. I'm sure you have heard the many stories of those who want to vote, but are unable to do so, due to barriers such as monetary reasons. Taking the time off to vote, for many, such as my mother, means losing time that could be earned as money, which would be used for food, bills, etc. She would love to vote, but making it to the next paycheck takes dominance over the aspiration of  voting. This, sadly, is true for many others.

2) Automatically Register those who turn 18 to Vote, unless they request not to. This would overcome the hurdle of the registration process, which would easily enable more people to enact on their power in the voting process.

3) Overturn voter ID laws within certain States. For many people, such as in large cities, they do not have a form of identification. In a big city with adequate public transportation, they do not require a driver's license - a common form of identification. If they wish to exercise their right to vote, and they do not have a form of identification in states that require additional ID when they vote, then this is yet another hurdle for Americans wishing to do so, and hurtful to democracy.

These are some of what I believe to be effective solutions to enable a greater number of people to act on their wishes to vote, to empower themselves and others, and to ultimately improve the State of Democracy within America.

Thank you for your time, and please respond with your thoughts on this matter. Until next time, adios!

Welcome to The Livingstonian!

Welcome, reader, to this blog of humble beginnings with large aspirations! I do implore you to check back whenever you please for updates on current issues and events dealing with a variety of topics, including, but not limited to, politics in America.

With this blog, I aim to share my opinion, and influence yours, concerning those topics which I find important, or worth mentioning. If you disagree with my opinion, then that is splendid. When we both have time, you and I (or multiple people, for that matter) can discuss the topic at hand, expressing our viewpoints and our reasoning for them; thus, achieving my other goal of encouraging civil discourse concerning whatever topic it may be. With the society we live in, I feel as though we must always strive towards civil, meaningful discussion for the purpose of enlightening all of those around us on the topics at hand (such as meaningful discussion concerning the presidential race which is now upon us).

Thank you for your time, and I wish you all a splendid day, full of exciting new experiences and the expansion of knowledge. Until we meet again, Guten tag (German, for 'good day')!