Top 5 Democratic Primaries Candidates

Top Democratic Primaries Candidates

Democratic PartyEvery time we get within two years of a presidential election, political debates begin to arise, celebrities and public figures speak out for or against current policies, and politicians from various states come to the forefront of the public eye. Part of the election process is selecting who will represent each party in the next presidential election. The Republican party currently holds the presidential office. President Donald Trump will most likely run for a second term and represent the party. If the Democrats want to take the office, it is imperative that they begin campaigning sooner rather than later. Towards the end of 2017, the Washington Post put together a list of the top Democratic candidates for primaries. Some are familiar politicians, others are less well known, and some are known for their celebrity status. As we witnessed in the previous election, anyone who claims they are going to run should be taken seriously.

Who are the Top Candidates?

The top candidates to win the Democratic primaries are from all over the country. Some are active politicians, others are hinting at a comeback, and one is very familiar with the White House. According to the Washington Post, the top candidates are:

  1. Bernie Sanders – Vermont Senator

Bernie Sanders is a name that has been thrown around in previous presidential elections. Although, each time he has fallen short of becoming the Democratic nominee. The 2020 election might be his best chance of reaching the coveted oval office. He has the experience on his side and has gone through this process before. We will see if he is able to learn from previous mistakes and lead the Dems to the promise land.

  1. Joe Biden – Former Vice President

Joe Biden is an interesting candidate. Biden served under the Obama administration as the Vice President. His actions and charismatic personality took the nation by storm. Unfortunately for Vice President Biden, his handling of past sexual harassment cases, like Clarence Thomas, may come back to haunt him.

  1. Elizabeth Warren – Massachusetts Senator

Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren comes in at the number three spot. Elizabeth Warren has shown little inclination to run and it is unlikely that she will run if Bernie Sanders does. However, if she decides to run, she may take the Democratic nomination.

  1. Kirsten Gillibrand – New York Senator

Kirsten Gillibrand became a household name after she called for President Trump’s resignation amidst sexual misconduct allegations. Since the allegations have subsided, but Kirsten has kept herself relevant. She has expressed interest in running for the presidential office. We will see if it comes to fruition over the next year.

  1. Kamala D. Harris – California Senator

Kamala was able to place herself in the democratic primary conversation when she spoke out in support of single-payer healthcare. Like Gillibrand, Harris called for Trump’s resignation amidst sexual misconduct allegations. Harris appears to be vocalizing her opinions on political matters, setting herself up for a primary nomination.

Other Names you May Recognize

In late December 2017, the Washington Post put together a list of the top 15 candidates for the Democratic nomination. Of course, there will be claims made by a ton of public figures if they are unhappy with the current administration, which many are not. Some of the names worth mentioning are:

Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson – Public Figure

Superstar wrestler turned actor has voiced his concerns with the current administration. He has been outspoken about his ambitions to run for office in 2020, but nothing much has come fo it.

Howard Schultz – Former Starbuck CEO

Although Schultz has not officially stated that he is interested in being considered as a candidate for the 2020 presidential campaign, he certainly has not held back from expressing his political beliefs. He has shared his visions for the future of America across many platforms. As the election nears, we will see if he is serious about running.

Oprah Winfrey – Public Figure

Oprah might be the most influential individual on this list. Her following is extensive and diverse. Further, her potential campaign budget will be unmatched. Oprah has been outspoken about her political beliefs. The former talk show host has compiled an abundance of awards and achievements for her philanthropic contributions to society. She is also an excellent communicator and would make for an interesting candidate.

Andrew M. Cuomo – New York Governor

Cuomo holds the second highest ranking office on this list, but he comes in at 10 and is currently the lower ranked candidate out of the New York State government. Cuomo has taken heat after mishandling sexual harassment allegations against his former senior aide.

What To Expect From Trump’s 2018 State of The Union Address

Tonight marks the first official State of The Union Address under Trump’s presidency. The speech will air on every major TV network and begins at 9 pm EST. Although there is no time limit on how long the speech can be, it is expected to go for almost an hour. For those who do not have cable or television, the State of The Union will stream online on CSPAN, Facebook, and YouTube.

The Obama administration usually provided the public with a list of policy proposals before the big speech in order for the public could have a better understanding of what was being discussed. However, the current administration has been ironically quiet and selective about what will be in tonight’s speech. Here’s what we have been told beforehand: the theme of tonight’s address is “building a safe, strong, and proud America” and will cover 5 topics: jobs and the economy, infrastructure, immigration, trade and national security.

And with a controversial first year, people are for the most part interested in what the President has to say but also interested in the fanfare that surrounds his presidency. Despite the rumors that President Trump was having an affair with porn star Stormy Daniels while she was pregnant, Melania is expected to make an appearance on Tuesday. However, members of Congress are invited to bring guests and many are rumored to be bringing those who are vehemently opposed to Trump’s administration including those who are members of DACA, transgendered troops and immigrants from “shithole” countries.

Approximately 11 Democratic party members will not be in attendance which is fewer than the 60 that boycotted the President’s inauguration last year. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will also not be in attendance. This might not seem unusual as many Supreme Court Justices do not attend the State Of The Union but she attended all of Obama’s State Of The Unions.

And even when Trump is finished, the drama does not end there. Joe Kennedy will deliver the Democratic Response, Bernie Sanders will deliver his own response, Elizabeth Guzman will deliver the Spanish response, Donna Edwards will comment on behalf of working families and Maxine Waters (who is one of the democratic leaders boycotting the event) will respond via BET.

Say what you want about Trump, the fact of the matter is no one has ever been this excited about politics!

Politicization Of The Emmys

The Emmys are a well-recognized and appreciated awards show to celebrate prime time television.

It brings together some of the most prominent personalities and talents from around the nation. However, this doesn’t mean the Emmys are devoid of controversy, and everything is as merry as it appears on stage.

The politicization of the Emmys has long been mentioned as a point of concern.

The awards were going to shows that had a political twist to their content. This theme started to become apparent as the likes of Saturday Night LIve (Donald Trump skits), The Handmaid’s Tale, and others began to sweep away every category.

Anti-Trump Rhetoric

Not only were the awards left-leaning in how they were presented but the general sentiment remained as such from start to finish. This was mentioned by White House Advisor Kellyanne Conway in her brief comments about the Emmys.

However, it was apparent a lot of the anti-Trump posturing had to do with the ongoing events.

According to those in the audience, it was normal and nothing out of the ordinary. Viewers were left with content that was one-sided and only looking to work along the lines of this anti-Trump rhetoric.

While the importance given to politics was intriguing and might have been noteworthy, it started to get in the way of the awards. Other deserving shows were pushed to the side because they didn’t fit this political theme that was ongoing, according to an estate lawyers.

Winner after winner had some attachment to the political undertones that spread across the awards show.

This meant shows that might have won in any other setting were left to rot away such as The Stranger Things. It was all about focusing on TV shows that maintained that political connection and continued to make a point about the ongoing politics in America.


Yes, Hulu was able to overcome all of the large budgets around it due to this reason.

It was able to make the most of its politicized content and push it to the top while others were left with nothing. While this is an exciting time for the company, it might have more to say about how the Emmys were hosted.

However, the writer of Handmaid’s Tale said this was the beginning of something special, and it was normal for people to talk out about her content. She said it was the same when she first released her book.

Football & Politics: Understanding How It Has Worked Together

There has been a lot in the news recently about politics entering sports and arguments over whether or not this is appropriate. This has been especially true in football when Colin Kaepernick (and others) kneeled during the National Anthem before the game, and when asked about it mentioned he was protesting the shooting of unarmed people of color by the police, who were then almost never punished. This led to a predictable political fall out with one side yelling about free speech, one side claiming what he (and all other athletes supporting him) were doing was disrespectful to the U.S. military, and some moderates trying to find a common ground.

So what is the history of football and politics and what exactly should their relationship be?

Who Started The Politics?

There’s some disagreement about this. While the name Colin Kaepernick comes up a lot, he was by far not the only one and in fact had teammates with him who also protested (and continue to be employed in the NFL). He was an early adopter of social justice protesting that included kneeling during the anthem, a move he says he adopted over sitting after talking with several former members of the special forces.

On the other hand, it’s a legitimate point to argue that Kaepernick and many other athletes wouldn’t be protesting at all if there wasn’t an injustice they felt like wasn’t getting enough attention or conversation. That’s generally the basis of peaceful protesting.

Another fact that has come up is the fact that the military has paid the NFL a considerable amount of money to create those pre-game displays and to have athletes out on the field during the singing of the national anthem. This wasn’t a long time tradition, but was a program designed to get the military out and associated with the NFL as a way to help spike recruitment numbers.

So in other words, politics was already injected into the NFL and that goes without even looking at the fact that local tax payers often have to float the bill for building a new stadium.

A Historical Way For POC To Speak Out

The truth is that politics have long been a part of the Civil Rights movement. Muhummad Ali and Jackie Robinson were major figures because sports hits a common chord across American culture. Their platform was a way to deal with deeper issues, so this is a situation that isn’t without precedence.

What Does This Mean?

Honestly, hard to say. There are strong passions on both sides of the issue of free speech, its exercise, and a lot of spin over this entire situation. Only time will tell how this particular chapter plays itself out.

Consequences Of Leaving The Paris Agreement

Currently, The United States is responsible for nearly one-fifth (20%) of all the global emissions. By leaving the Paris Climate Change Agreement there are serious consequences.

The entire world is working together for three major things:  and their leaving this agreement is a big slap in the face.

  1. To reduce carbon output
  2.  Transition to renewable energy sources
  3. Locking in future climate measures

And with The United States leaving this agreement, it is a big slap in the face to the global community at large.

President Trump defense is that the Paris Agreement would impose a high cost on the U.S economy. He claims:

  1. Job Losses – Trump claimed that 2.7 million jobs would be lost.
  2. Not Effective – Trump claims the tiny temperature decrease isn’t worth it
  3. Economic Impact – Trump claims that the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) would lose $3 trillion dollars
  4. Blackouts and Burnouts – Trump claims we need fossil fuel for electricity
  5. We Already Donate – Trump claims we don’t need to be in the agreement because we already donate the U.N.

With Trump’s America First Plan, the climate change agreement puts the world first and that is why we left the agreement.

Here’s the reality of the situation:

  1. Solar energy jobs continue to increase as coal jobs continue to decrease. As the world becomes more environmentally conscious new technology will emerge and so will new jobs
  2. In the past 100 years, the temperature has risen .9 degrees and there has been devastating consequences to our planet. If we can reduce the overall increase in temperature fluctuation by .9 degrees by 2100 – how can it not be significant?
  3. This claim is based on the current carbon tax rate that the US imposes. With less carbon, less tax which equals less income for the government. Real estimates believe the GDP would lose only .10% of its total income
  4. This is incorrect. Here’s what causes blackouts and brownouts: weather, animals, equipment failure, earthquakes, digging, and lightning. High energy demand is a cause but only on very hot summer days and it’s not from lack of power. It’s from excessive heat – heat from the environment and the equipment causing equipment failure! And with global temperature annual rising this will be a problem regardless.
  5. If you produce most of the emissions, donating does not make that any less. You still make the emissions and you should try to stop it.

As you can see, this is a very frustrating situation. The Individual States have agreed to be part of te Paris Agreement and plan on implementing state-level changes to help reduce overall emissions.

What is Gerrymandering and How Does it Work?

Gerrymandering is a practice that is sometimes used in politics to divide districts in a way that will allow one side to have a political advantage in an election.

Imagine that a state has 100 precincts, of which 60 are in favour of Party A, and 40 are skewed towards Party B, but voting is done by district not by precinct. Depending on which precincts are in which district, it could be possible for Party B to control more precincts than Party A, thereby winning the election.

Historically, districts or constituencies have been decided by geography alone, which makes the election process broadly fair because political alignment does not come into account – however if the central government has typically focused on, say, “the rich south” then “the poor north” may skew towards a different government because of a feeling of isolation from those in power. If there were some strongholds towards the current government in areas where it typically struggles to get votes, then in theory the practice of gerrymandering could be used to turn constituencies ‘the right color’ in the voting process.

Gerrymandering has negative connotations, and it is not something that is considered good practice, but it can be hard to tell the true motivations of changing the lines for a district or constituency. If the reason behind the change was one of practicality, or even intended to ensure that elections were more fair, then that is a different case. Manipulating boundaries to create more competitive elections is still a form of gerrymandering, but it is less controversial because it offers better representation for the whole population. Such changes are achieved by the use of neutral bodies that work with statistics or through the work of cross-party bodies, to ensure everyone has a voice. There have been occasions where such work has been vocally opposed by parties that benefit from gerrymandering, especially in the UK and the USA.

In some cases, rather than changing boundaries, the changes are achieved by counting prisoners as being a part of the district in which the prison is located, rather than in the area that the prisoner usually lives. This affects the percentage of non-voters significantly, and can have an impact on the overall outcome of an election as an indirect result, while adversely affecting the areas where there are no prisons, by comparison

Some Of The Pros And Cons Of Marijuana Legalization

In the United States, marijuana has been illegal for most the past 100 years or so. However, some states, such as Colorado and Washington, have now legalized owning personal quantities of marijuana with encouragement from attorneys and other legal advisors. However, this has opened up a lot of debate in other states about the pros and cons of legalizing marijuana. There are plenty of opinions on both sides and the different sides aren’t split along the usual political line either.

Legalized Marijuana Frees Up Policeman

One of the huge reasons to legalize weed is to free up the jails, courtrooms, and policemen to focus on other, more important crimes. There is always a shortage of money in the justice system so crimes have to be prioritized by importance with the most serious getting the resources and the lesser crimes not so much. In states that have now legalized smoking weed the police no longer need to pay any attention to those that are only smoking and can focus on dangerous felons.

It also relieves the huge burden that many young people pay when they enter the justice system after being arrested. The lawyers, fines, and jail time take their toll and leave many people in debt for years. Now they can be left in peace and not worry about being arrested.

There Are Benefits To Medical Marijuana As Well

The most common two drugs in weed have two different effects on the human body. One, the THC is what causes people to feel euphoric, or high, the other CBD has a full range of benefits that have nothing to do with feeling high at all. The CBD has been shown to be highly effective in reducing joint pain caused by arthritis. Many sufferers of arthritis have been taking opiates for so long that they’ve lost their effects and they have to keep increasing the dosage. By smoking medical marijuana that has a high CBD content they can reduce or completely replace all of the prescription pain medication they’re taking.

Although the evidence is still being collected and research being done to prove its effectiveness, many veterans swear by marijuana as a treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Some US states have allowed prescriptions to be written so that those seeking help can smoke marijuana for relief. The US Department of Vets Affairs publicly states that there is no evidence of it working on PTSD yet millions of Vets go on PTSD forums and state their claims that it’s the best treatment available.

There Are Some Cons To Legalizing Marijuana

Obviously, people getting high is not the best use of their time, and driving a vehicle after smoking can be dangerous as well. But many people do the same after consuming alcohol and there are systems in place to reduce this particular type of abuse.

If nothing else, freeing up the justice system from the huge backlog of pot smokers will save a lot of money. At the same time, many of the states that legalize the drug are also collecting taxes on it and making money. The debate will rage on and eventually more states will legalize smoking marijuana and more studies will be done on it’s use in pain relief, PTSD, depression and other diseases as well.

The Pros and Cons Of Building A Border Wall Between Mexico And The United States

The new president of the United States, Donald Trump, has decided to erect a wall in between Mexico and the United States. The reason for doing so is to theoretically help diminish the possibility of having illegal immigrants cross over from Mexico into America. Although there is a substantial fence line that is constantly monitored which has been successful at diminishing illegal immigration, it is thought that this wall will actually be a much better deterrent. Let’s look at the pros and cons of building a border wall between Mexico and the United States to determine whether spending billions of dollars on this new barrier will be worth the money.

Do We Currently Have An Existing Wall Or Fence?

There is actually a fence line between the United States and Mexico that has existed for many years. It does not, however, block the entire border. The continental border itself is nearly 2000 miles in length, but there is currently only 580 miles that is fenced off. Although it is not a continuous structure, it does protect a sizable area, specifically where the border is easy to access. There are also digital cameras, drones, and individuals that patrol this area, helping to make it as effective as possible. The areas where no fence exists are in regions that would require people from Mexico to travel into very mountainous areas or across desert terrain for a minimum of 50 miles before reaching the US-Mexico border.

Will A New 2000 Mile Wall Completely Eliminate Illegal Immigration?

It is unlikely that a wall that blocks the entire border would be 100% effective that preventing illegal immigration. People will still find a way to climb the wall, go under the wall, or they may simply focus on ramping up the creation of fake identifications. Although having a wall that extends the full distance would prevent people and vehicles from simply walking across the border, the remaining 1400 miles of the border that is currently not protected by a physical structure are areas where human beings would simply not attempt to cross.

The Pros And Cons Of Building This Wall

From a negative perspective, this wall is estimated to cost upwards of $20 billion, something that President Trump initially stated the Mexican government would pay for, will likely be paid for through American taxes. There is also no guarantee that it will prevent future illegal immigrants from crossing the border as pointed out by legal professionals. On the other hand, from a positive perspective, it may provide extra protection. Until the wall is up, and its value can be assessed, we may never know. What we do know is that illegal immigration is something that will continue to happen, and when people are desperate enough, they tend to find a way to get from Mexico into the United States.

About the Defense of Marriage Act

Byname of U.S. Public Law 104-199., the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law in force from 1996 up to 2013 which specifically denied all same-sex couples all federal recognition and benefits bestowed upon opposite-sex couples. What those benefits included owe over 1,000 federal privileges and protections, for example access to employment benefits of a partner, recognition of relationship, joint tax returns, tax exemptions, residency or immigration or partners which were not citizens, rights of inheritance, protection from domestic violence, next-of-kin status. As well as the right to live together in college or military housing.

What the DOMA mandated was that states that banned same-sex marriage were not under the obligation to recognize same-sex marriages which had been performed in other states, this went as far as stating that for purposes of federal law, marriage could only take place between a man and a woman. When introduced, the act received overwhelming support from Congress even thought was speculated that same-sex marriage would soon be legalized in Hawaii, meaning the other states will be forced to recognize same-sex marriages which had occurred in Hawaii. The DOMA was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. After that occurred, around forty states enacted unequivocal bans in either state laws or state constitutions on same-sex marriage.

A nonbiological parent in a same-sex couple under DOMA was not able to have a legal relationship established with the biological parent´s child or children; same-sex partners were also not allowed to take a family medical leave to care for their partners or nonbiological children, to adopt the children, or id the relationship ended, to petition the court for child support, custody, or visitations.

The way that DOMA advocates viewed opposite-sex marriage was as being the only appropriate context for procreation and for forming a family According to supporters of DOMA, alternative family formations was validated by same-sex marriage, it undermined monogamy and opposite-sex marriage, it encouraged relationships that were incestuous as well as polygamous marriage. Opponents argued that definition of marriage and family that were narrow like this devalued every other kind of relationship and family, discriminated based off of sex, and related homosexuality with polygamy and incest.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the definition the DOMA placed on marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman in 2013 (United States v. Windsor). The provision of law which had allowed these states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that had taken place in another jurisdiction was in 2015 invalidated by the court (Obergefell v. Hodges), which granted same-sex couples the constitutional right to marry.

Understanding The War On Drugs

The War On Drugs is primarily associated with the United States desire to end the illegal drug trade and influx of drugs into the nation. The initiative was begun under the presidency of Richard Nixon and set forth a number of policies that were designed to end the production, consumption, and distribution of illegal psychoactive drugs. It was at this time in 1971 that President Nixon announced that drug abuse was considered “public enemy number one”. This war that began over 45 years ago costs American taxpayers over 51 billion dollars a year.

The war on drugs would pick up considerable steam under the Reagan administration. In fact, it was Nancy Reagan who would create the Just Say No campaign to introduce this war to children across the world. The campaign would use cartoon and sitcom stars to showcase this new aspect of the war. While it was a highly successful campaign and got children talking about drugs in the open, it did very little to slow down drug use in the nation (especially in Missouri) or world.

The war on drugs would continue through the next several presidential administrations with very little change. It would not be until President Obama took office that the war would take on a new course. While the war would continue, the administration decided it would no longer be known as a war on drugs. It was decided that the term was counter-productive and that drugs needed to be treated as a disease and not the enemy. In fact, it was the drug policy of Sweden that changed the policy of the United States. Within Sweden, there has been great care to provide health care for drug addiction as well as drug legalization. It has been shown to work as the Swedens use of cocaine is barely one-fifth of what Spain uses. It is assumed if we follow a similar policy the drug rate will lower. Which is one of the reasons there has been a considerable turn on the legalization of marijuana in this country?

However, with all of the policies and money that has been spent the war on drugs was declared a failure in 2011. In addition, it was stated that the world is a worse position due to the war on drugs. It is now known that new initiatives need to be put in place and the world needs to rethink drug policies.