Sunday, August 21, 2016
Sick Leave
Hey so I know that I said I would be blogging more. However, I got sick like three weeks ago (got over it in a week). It was just a cold (thank G-D), and I know my title is misleading to suggest worse. Anyways, I was sick, traveling, moving from New York to Florida, and just started law school. I have lots of great blogs lined up, but will post and write when my schedule becomes less hectic.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016
Some Shameless Self-promotion
I'm going to self-promote myself. Sorry in advance. However, for anyone who does not know I have a football blog called "Moshe Football". It has been active for almost six years now (October of 2010 if I'm not mistaken). You can find my football blog by clicking here. My Twitter handle is @Moshefootball and my Facebook page is called Moshe Football as well.
Monday, July 18, 2016
Official Endorsement
My original official endorsement was for Marco Rubio. Since he dropped out of the race, I had to choose who my vote would be going for. I do not see Gary Johnson as a legitimate candidate and feel a vote for him is a throw-away vote. I am not enthusiastic about any candidate. While I am not thrilled between having to choose between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, I feel that Clinton would be an absolute disaster. I believe a vote for Clinton is a vote to continue Barack Obama's policies for another four years. Therefore, my official endorsement is for Donald Trump. I have faith that he will not screw up this country.
Thursday, July 14, 2016
Is this the Most Diverse USA Olympics Women's Gymnastics Team Ever?
I was never interested in women's gymnastics. I'm still not. However, my wife and her sister's are die-hard women's gymnastic fans. They know everything including the history of the sport. I actually find it funny that this is their favorite sport and what they are interested in.
When people think of gymnastics, they think of rich, white, blonde girls. You don't think of people with darker skin. You don't think of the name Hernandez. Gymnastics is not the sport you think of when you talk diversity.
My wife and her sister said something interesting. They talked how this might be the most diverse US gymnastics team in history. I don't know if it's true. I haven't done the research. However, I am inclined to believe it.
It doesn't matter exactly if it is true or not. What is true, is this team comes during a time when racial tension and questions about diversity have encompassed all of our lives. These women have made the Olympic team not because the color of their skin, but because of their talent and if their skill fits the team's need (I'm looking at you Gabby Douglas). This team begs you to ask if things like affirmative action are still necessary or if we have transgressed past being a racist country.
That can be a discussion for another time. Right now, let's honor these women and talk about their diverse background.
Simone Biles - 19 year old Simone Biles is being called "the GOAT". She is African-American and was born in Ohio.
Aly Raisman - Aly Raisman is of Jewish decent. She made her second Olympic team in a row.
Laurie Hernandez - Laurie who did absolutely amazing on her floor routine during tryouts is of Hispanic decent.
Madison Kocian - Madison is a white female. She will most likely be used for the bars.
Gabby Douglas - Gabby is also African-American. She is a fan favorite who peaks under pressure.
The alternates are MyKayla Skinner and Ragan Smith, who are white, and Ashton Locklear who is Native American.
When people think of gymnastics, they think of rich, white, blonde girls. You don't think of people with darker skin. You don't think of the name Hernandez. Gymnastics is not the sport you think of when you talk diversity.
My wife and her sister said something interesting. They talked how this might be the most diverse US gymnastics team in history. I don't know if it's true. I haven't done the research. However, I am inclined to believe it.
It doesn't matter exactly if it is true or not. What is true, is this team comes during a time when racial tension and questions about diversity have encompassed all of our lives. These women have made the Olympic team not because the color of their skin, but because of their talent and if their skill fits the team's need (I'm looking at you Gabby Douglas). This team begs you to ask if things like affirmative action are still necessary or if we have transgressed past being a racist country.
That can be a discussion for another time. Right now, let's honor these women and talk about their diverse background.
Simone Biles - 19 year old Simone Biles is being called "the GOAT". She is African-American and was born in Ohio.
Aly Raisman - Aly Raisman is of Jewish decent. She made her second Olympic team in a row.
Laurie Hernandez - Laurie who did absolutely amazing on her floor routine during tryouts is of Hispanic decent.
Madison Kocian - Madison is a white female. She will most likely be used for the bars.
Gabby Douglas - Gabby is also African-American. She is a fan favorite who peaks under pressure.
The alternates are MyKayla Skinner and Ragan Smith, who are white, and Ashton Locklear who is Native American.
Monday, July 11, 2016
Where does the line stop?
I meant to write this post in May. However, I got caught up with finals and moving so I'm writing it now. I would say May was the height of the whole debate about transgenders and bathroom use.
I want to say that I don't personally care about transgenders using the same bathroom as me. However, I totally sympathize with both sides. I understand those who resist the change, scared of safety, and have issues religiously. I also understand that some people feel like they were meant to be born the opposite sex and I understand that using a bathroom with the sex they identify with is very emotional.
It is a tough issue. I'm not sure what the resolution should be. I don't think it is as black and white as many on both sides make it out to be. My personal opinion is as follows. Why are we bending over back to make such a small percent of the population feel comfortable? Transgenders are a very small percent and there is a much larger percent of religious and parents' worried about safety for their children who feel uncomfortable about someone using a bathroom opposite of their born sex. In a weird way, by bending over back we are actually giving transgenders in a way more rights.
That's not what this article is meant to be about. Actually what this article is about is "the line". To better explain, I need to give a little bit of back story. In May, a student in my class was making fun of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP leader who identified as black. My professor in a half-joking-half-not way told her to not make fun of Rachel. She identifies as black and therefore she is black.
That's what is the issue now. Where does the line stop? Why are we okay with someone who was born a male identifying as a girl but not a person born white identifying as black? Why can't I identify as a Harvard graduate? If that's how I feel then that is how I feel.
If you say that we have to be realistic then are you not being hypocritical? If someone was born a male then they are born a male. Now unless they get a full sex change aren't they still a male? I'm looking at you Caitlyn Jenner.
I want to say that I don't personally care about transgenders using the same bathroom as me. However, I totally sympathize with both sides. I understand those who resist the change, scared of safety, and have issues religiously. I also understand that some people feel like they were meant to be born the opposite sex and I understand that using a bathroom with the sex they identify with is very emotional.
It is a tough issue. I'm not sure what the resolution should be. I don't think it is as black and white as many on both sides make it out to be. My personal opinion is as follows. Why are we bending over back to make such a small percent of the population feel comfortable? Transgenders are a very small percent and there is a much larger percent of religious and parents' worried about safety for their children who feel uncomfortable about someone using a bathroom opposite of their born sex. In a weird way, by bending over back we are actually giving transgenders in a way more rights.
That's not what this article is meant to be about. Actually what this article is about is "the line". To better explain, I need to give a little bit of back story. In May, a student in my class was making fun of Rachel Dolezal, the NAACP leader who identified as black. My professor in a half-joking-half-not way told her to not make fun of Rachel. She identifies as black and therefore she is black.
That's what is the issue now. Where does the line stop? Why are we okay with someone who was born a male identifying as a girl but not a person born white identifying as black? Why can't I identify as a Harvard graduate? If that's how I feel then that is how I feel.
If you say that we have to be realistic then are you not being hypocritical? If someone was born a male then they are born a male. Now unless they get a full sex change aren't they still a male? I'm looking at you Caitlyn Jenner.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
25 Twitter Followers
Today I saw that I reached 25 followers on Twitter. I want to thank all who follow me. 25 is the first milestone and I truly appreciate it. If you don't follow me on Twitter yet, you can follow me at my handle @MoshePoliticsGo.
Tuesday, April 5, 2016
Mount Sinai has an Intra-Gender Problem
Mount Sinai has an intra-gender problem...
...or so its members would have you believe.
Mount Sinai is a synagogue in Washington Heights, NY. It's the area I currently live. While Mount Sinai is not the synagogue in the area that I belong to, it is arguably the biggest and most influential one. Mount Sinai like any good synagogue holds community events. This past Sunday, Mount Sinai held one such event called "Man-Seder".
The Man-Seder event was a male-only event where members of the community came together to eat, drink, and learn Torah. (Torah is the old testament, but can also be used as an umbrella term for any Judaic study). While someone right away may see a problem with a male only event, that person should keep in mind the fact that Mount Sinai also holds female-only events, as well as events for both genders. It is okay to have events for males only, especially since they usually have more events that are for females only. Mount Sinai is an orthodox synagogue and sometimes they just want to make events for some male bonding.
So once we get past that, then what is the problem? Well, in my eyes nothing is wrong. However, on the Facebook event for the page someone did have a problem. Now, I want to say first that everyone's identity will be protected. Even though people said their beliefs in a public forum and therefore is the truth, for the sake of civility I will not post any names.
The Man-Seder did promote certain stereotypes. The meal would be very meat based and there would be an abundance of beer. It is true that not all males drink. It is true that not all males eat meat. However, the stereotype does have some truth to it. Overall, many men do like drinking beer and eating meat.
On the Facebook event for the Man-Seder, a female pointed out the fact the not all men fit in what is considered "manly" with a video and a long post. Now, the creators of the event offered for anyone who doesn't drink alcohol a non-alcoholic option. They were also working on a vegetarian option after some people reached out to them to do such. To me it sounds like they were being pretty inclusive to a variety of people. You can be a different sexual orientation, race, or political party to go. So when the girl pointed out that not all men are meat eaters or drink alcohol, she didn't do it because she cared about informing us of injustice, but to be self-righteous and seek attention.
It is something you see often nowadays. People will find a problem in every little thing and call it out to make themselves look good. People take it upon themselves to be Social-Warriors for those who don't fit in the norm. However, they don't realize that they aren't making those not in the norm more accepted but those in the norm to be villains
Below are pictures of the conversation so you can make your own conclusions. I will post a follow up with pictures of all the comments from the thread that I have. Excuse the pictures' rotation below. I'm still figuring out how to post pictures to the blog.
...or so its members would have you believe.
Mount Sinai is a synagogue in Washington Heights, NY. It's the area I currently live. While Mount Sinai is not the synagogue in the area that I belong to, it is arguably the biggest and most influential one. Mount Sinai like any good synagogue holds community events. This past Sunday, Mount Sinai held one such event called "Man-Seder".
The Man-Seder event was a male-only event where members of the community came together to eat, drink, and learn Torah. (Torah is the old testament, but can also be used as an umbrella term for any Judaic study). While someone right away may see a problem with a male only event, that person should keep in mind the fact that Mount Sinai also holds female-only events, as well as events for both genders. It is okay to have events for males only, especially since they usually have more events that are for females only. Mount Sinai is an orthodox synagogue and sometimes they just want to make events for some male bonding.
So once we get past that, then what is the problem? Well, in my eyes nothing is wrong. However, on the Facebook event for the page someone did have a problem. Now, I want to say first that everyone's identity will be protected. Even though people said their beliefs in a public forum and therefore is the truth, for the sake of civility I will not post any names.
The Man-Seder did promote certain stereotypes. The meal would be very meat based and there would be an abundance of beer. It is true that not all males drink. It is true that not all males eat meat. However, the stereotype does have some truth to it. Overall, many men do like drinking beer and eating meat.
On the Facebook event for the Man-Seder, a female pointed out the fact the not all men fit in what is considered "manly" with a video and a long post. Now, the creators of the event offered for anyone who doesn't drink alcohol a non-alcoholic option. They were also working on a vegetarian option after some people reached out to them to do such. To me it sounds like they were being pretty inclusive to a variety of people. You can be a different sexual orientation, race, or political party to go. So when the girl pointed out that not all men are meat eaters or drink alcohol, she didn't do it because she cared about informing us of injustice, but to be self-righteous and seek attention.
It is something you see often nowadays. People will find a problem in every little thing and call it out to make themselves look good. People take it upon themselves to be Social-Warriors for those who don't fit in the norm. However, they don't realize that they aren't making those not in the norm more accepted but those in the norm to be villains
Below are pictures of the conversation so you can make your own conclusions. I will post a follow up with pictures of all the comments from the thread that I have. Excuse the pictures' rotation below. I'm still figuring out how to post pictures to the blog.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Liberal Logic in Agents of Shield Explanation
One post before shows a Youtube video with a clip from Agents of Shield. For anyone who needs an explanation, the video shows Lance Hunter on the ground with a gun pointed at his head. He explains to the bad guys pointing the gun that this is a gun-free zone. To his dismay, the bad guys don't listen. This basically sums up liberal logic. Liberals think bad guys will just put down weapons because others don't have it. Whichever writer wrote this joke in deserves a round of applause.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Follow Up: Calling Out Antisemitism on Twitter
Two weeks ago, I put up a post called . It was about a twitter user called MEastQuagmire who was using the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as his cause, but really his tweets were just hiding antisemitism. He kept deleting his posts so I took pictures so they would not get lost forever. Below is the rest of our conversation on Twitter.
Wednesday, March 9, 2016
Exclusive: Federal Reserve Limiting Free Speech?
I was having a conversation with someone I know yesterday who is attending some seminar/workshop thing with the Federal Reserve in the next few weeks. This individual is an accounting professional. He tells me all the time how he goes to the workshops as part of his continuing education requirements. For all intensive purposes we will call this individual my source.
My source has told me that the Federal Reserve had sent an email to all of the individuals attending the event. In the email, the Federal Reserve outlined rules. Some of these rules described not asking questions to the speakers that are intimidating. The attendees were also ordered to not display any negative emotions about the material the entire day. In essence, the attendees are suppose to just nod and go with the flow.
This should piss you off. My source told me he has never seen this before in any of the continuing education courses he has taken, and that includes from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve isn't some private sector company, it is a government entity. Like my source said, "I'm going to ask them questions because I am a tax payer". And he is right. These seminars deal with new rules and regulations in the federal banking system. If a person has a question regarding that then they should have the right to ask. Furthermore, these seminars are to further education, if a person has a question regarding a validity/understanding of a rule then they should be able to ask. Especially since taking continuing education is required by the government.
Now, it is possible that my source was overreacting or got information mixed up. However, I am inclined to believe him. It is also possible that in a past conference, a speaker was asked an inappropriate question. If that is true though, then why was that rule accompanied by a rule about being negative.
This is the way our country is going. We are expected to shut up and look happy. We can no longer question the government. This should outrage you.
Sources
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm
My source has told me that the Federal Reserve had sent an email to all of the individuals attending the event. In the email, the Federal Reserve outlined rules. Some of these rules described not asking questions to the speakers that are intimidating. The attendees were also ordered to not display any negative emotions about the material the entire day. In essence, the attendees are suppose to just nod and go with the flow.
This should piss you off. My source told me he has never seen this before in any of the continuing education courses he has taken, and that includes from the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve isn't some private sector company, it is a government entity. Like my source said, "I'm going to ask them questions because I am a tax payer". And he is right. These seminars deal with new rules and regulations in the federal banking system. If a person has a question regarding that then they should have the right to ask. Furthermore, these seminars are to further education, if a person has a question regarding a validity/understanding of a rule then they should be able to ask. Especially since taking continuing education is required by the government.
Now, it is possible that my source was overreacting or got information mixed up. However, I am inclined to believe him. It is also possible that in a past conference, a speaker was asked an inappropriate question. If that is true though, then why was that rule accompanied by a rule about being negative.
This is the way our country is going. We are expected to shut up and look happy. We can no longer question the government. This should outrage you.
Sources
http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/about_12594.htm
Thursday, March 3, 2016
YouTube Video Explanation
First off, please excuse any loud breathing on the video. The phone was right in front of my face and I had a cold that day. For anyone who saw, I posted my first video to the Moshe Politics YouTube channel late last night. I just want to give a quick explanation of the video. The video is called "Why Republicans Would Rather Clinton Over Sanders if it Must be One of Them". Basically, I talk about what would happen if Clinton wins and how she'll keep stuff status quo. However, if Sanders win he will redefine the left. Now he is considered a far left candidate, but him winning will make him the new left. I attached the video for you to view.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
YouTube Channel
Below is a link to the YouTube Channel for Moshe Politics. This channel is not like the Facebook and the Twitter page where articles will be posted up in a timely matter. The YouTube channel will be for when I feel making a video is the best way to get an idea through.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe0KowmQ0VOiYQPuOo-vb7Q
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
Calling Out Antisemitism on Twitter
Yesterday, I put up a meme on Twitter about Mahmoud Abbas. It was about how Abbas said that no Israeli would ever be allowed to live among a Palestinian sate. Middle East politics is always controversial, but unfortunately at times you receive responses from someone who is on the side you disagree with to the nth degree. While sometimes these people are just trolls, the interaction I had the today was not with a troll. A twitter user by the name of @MEastQuagmire responded to me. We had an interaction where he made claims ranging from a video I posted being similar to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels to condoning the murder of Ezra Schwartz to comparing Hamas and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to condoning the knife attacks in Israel by Palestinians as okay under the Geneva Convention. These ridiculous claims by this man should remain public so people who follow him can understand the ludicrous aspects of these statements. He did say that he didn't condone the killing of any children of any religion, I do have to give him that. I wasn't going to post anything about this on my blog until I noticed that some of the tweets had been deleted. Due to this, I called him out on deleting tweets and he posted another tweet condoning the murder of Ezra Schwartz. I decided to take pictures of these in case more gets deleted.
Why Bernie Sanders Is Losing The Primaries Despite Everyone You Know Being A Sanders' Supporter
Super Tuesday is upon us. That means many states will be holding their primaries today. Donald Trump is leading the Republicans with 82 delegates. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are far behind with 17 and 16, respectively. John Kasich and Ben Carson aren't even worth mentioning. On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton is beating Bernie Sanders 546 to 87 delegates.
I was reading an article yesterday about the South Carolina primaries and how it is being misread. The article was pro-Bernie and didn't think the primaries are over. I didn't agree with the article and believe Hillary has it in the bag. However, like I often do, I headed to the comments to see other people's perspectives. Of course, like every other political article, there where many different opinions fighting with each other.
While looking through the comments, I saw someone bringing up a good point, one I have thought of before. Recently, if you have gone on social media, you probably have seen a crazy amount of your friends or family posting memes or articles in favor of Sanders. I know I have seen a good amount and am not a Democrat. In fact, I have seen much more for Sanders compared to an almost nonexistent amount for Clinton. So what is going on? How is it possible that everyone I seem to know is a Sanders supporter, yet Clinton is winning the primaries?
My theory for this is as follows. Most Bernie supporters are younger and millennials. The younger voters are one of the demographics that are least likely to vote. For whatever reason it is, older people seem to care more about voting. While many young people are passionate about Bernie Sanders, they only talk about how he should be President on social media and not through action. Maybe younger voters are busier and don't have the time to vote (especially in states' with caucuses). It could also simply be that young voters don't understand the importance of voting.
Whatever the reason, the youth vote is not coming through for Sanders. Just talking online isn't action. If your not going to vote then don't complain.
Sources
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=what%20is%20super%20tuesday&oq=what%20is%20s&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6873j1j7#eob=m.09c7w0/R/3/short/m.09c7w0/
I was reading an article yesterday about the South Carolina primaries and how it is being misread. The article was pro-Bernie and didn't think the primaries are over. I didn't agree with the article and believe Hillary has it in the bag. However, like I often do, I headed to the comments to see other people's perspectives. Of course, like every other political article, there where many different opinions fighting with each other.
My theory for this is as follows. Most Bernie supporters are younger and millennials. The younger voters are one of the demographics that are least likely to vote. For whatever reason it is, older people seem to care more about voting. While many young people are passionate about Bernie Sanders, they only talk about how he should be President on social media and not through action. Maybe younger voters are busier and don't have the time to vote (especially in states' with caucuses). It could also simply be that young voters don't understand the importance of voting.
Whatever the reason, the youth vote is not coming through for Sanders. Just talking online isn't action. If your not going to vote then don't complain.
Sources
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=what%20is%20super%20tuesday&oq=what%20is%20s&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6873j1j7#eob=m.09c7w0/R/3/short/m.09c7w0/
Friday, February 26, 2016
Official Endorsement
Moshe Politics official endorsement for the 2016 Presidential Election is for Marco Rubio.
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Why People Hate Celebrities
Have you seen those "travel to California" commercials? The ones with all the celebrities well groomed, playing in the sun, catching balls, and just being "normal". All of those celebrities claim to "just be like you". They're not though.
All celebrities have their die-hard fans. Justin Bieber has his Beliebers, Beyonce has The Beyhive, and Katy Perry has her Katycats. Die-hard fans of celebrities have been around forever. With the rise of social media, fans can join together in record numbers for even the smallest youtuber like PewDiePie. However, with that rise comes "Haters". A hater according to Google is "a person who greatly dislikes a specified person or thing". Simple enough. It seems though that Haters have arrived more (or at least become more vocal) with the rise of the internet. The farther you go back in time, the less you heard of hate towards big celebrities. That could be because the internet gave them a way to be more vocal, everything a celebrity does is now more publicized, or both. If you look at Justin Bieber who has millions of fans, it also seems as if millions of more people dislike him or at least not "just" indifferent. So why do we hate these celebrities?
The answer is simple! They aren't us. And I'm not saying black people and white people aren't the same or rich people and poor people aren't the same so they should dislike each other. Celebrities aren't like us and that is okay. It is when they tell us how to live that is not okay.
For the purpose of the article, we are going to make a distinction between a celebrity and a famous person. This is just to make it easier on us. We will define a celebrity as someone who is famous for whatever reason, but is also always in the news and tabloids for reasons unrelated solely for their work. According to this definition, I will define Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber, and even George Clooney (for all his humanitarian work) as a celebrity. A famous person is just someone who is famous for their work, but stays quiet outside of what they do. I would describe Ryan Reynolds, Daniel Day Lewis, and Barack Obama (his work is leading the nation so telling people what to do is okay) as just a famous person.
Average people are starting to get fed up with celebrities. Obviously, there are those who like tabloids enough to keep the business and celebrities in business. But everyday resentment is growing towards celebrities. There is a simple reason why too. We don't want to be told what to do by hypocrites. How many times will you see celebrity tell you to cut down on gas use only to see them driving one of their many luxurious sports cars? Celebrities will tell us we need to donate to different causes to help the less fortunate when meanwhile we have to fight day to day to survive. The worst offenders are seeing celebrities praised for losing all their baby weight after six weeks when they have a nanny to take care of the baby.
And I'm about to say something that is unpopular. It is mostly liberals. Kim Kardashian just went to support Hillary Clinton. Beyonce just did the controversial Black Lives Matter-esque act at the Superbowl. Yes, you do see more conservative famous people speaking out nowadays, but that is usually Jon Voight speaking out for Israel, or a Republican celebrity talking about how people should be left alone.
Liberals live in a world of La La Land. Just look at every millennial Bernie Sanders supporter asking for free college education who will call you a cold-hearted person if you disagree. There are the liberals who actually believe in what they preach and I can respect them. I have a professor who sends her daughter to a more expensive daycare specifically for the attraction of it being more diverse. I don't agree with that, but I respect it. Most liberals aren't like that. (Ever hear of the section 8 housing in Fair Lawn issue)? However, liberal celebrities are even worse. Many of them are uneducated people who hit the lottery genetically and got lucky being discovered. They have more money than they know what to do with. For them, donating tens of thousands of dollars at a time is a drop in the bucket. Celebrities can do it and then they just expect you to follow. Let's not mention that it is actually beneficial for them when they do charity work because it gives them positive publicity.
These people don't live in reality. Ever watch the Academy Awards? It is a bunch of them patting each other on the back. Do they work hard? Yes, some of them do. Do I admire their work ethic? Yes, I can, but I don't need Jennifer Lawrence telling me how I'm a bad person because I support a party that in her eyes "doesn't support women's basic rights".
Celebrities are put in a position that makes them think they are gods and know what is best for everyone. It is our own fault for letting them get there. We can do something about it though. Stand up, and call out celebrities who make ludicrous statements or tell us what to do. Let them know that they aren't one of us.
Next time a celebrity tells you they are one of the guys, don't believe them. It is okay that they aren't like us. Their psyche is very different. They have struggles that are different than ours. But they aren't us.
Sources
https://www.google.com/search?q=hater&oq=hater&aqs=chrome..69i57.1578j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
http://madamenoire.com/275027/beliebers-barbz-and-the-beyhive-the-craziest-celebrity-fan-bases-and-the-weird-names-theyve-adopted/
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/259951-jennifer-lawrence-the-gop-doesnt-support-womens-basic-rights
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
Twitter and Facebook Feed
The Moshe Politics Twitter feed (@MoshePoliticsGo) and Facebook posts (Page: Moshe Politics) have been added to the side of the Blogspot. Now you guys could come here to see everything all in one website. This is all thanks to the POWr social feed gadget.
Should Republicans Give Up on the Issue of Abortion?
Originally I thought about making a political blog around August 2015 during the time of the first Republican Debate. Planned Parenthood had been in the spotlight recently due to release of videos alleging that PP had been doing illegal things with unborn fetuses. For me abortion has been an issue that has seen my views evolve over times. As of right now, I don't look at abortion as a religious issue, but more of an issue from a scientific perspective. Different people have different theories about when life begins. I am pro-choice up a certain point and after that point I am pro-life. I think many people are like me. Very few people would be on the extreme and it is just the time where we feel life begins that makes us different. For example, I've learned that according to some Jews, life begins 40 days after conception. From my research, I have found that the opposite of the way we declare someone has passed away happens around the 12th week of pregnancy (the first trimester). For some reason, growing up, I always have seen abortion with in the first trimester as okay, and after the first trimester as not okay. This is my view as of now, but like I said before I am willing to evolve my view as I learn more.
Back in 2015 this post was going to be about why Republicans should give up on the issue of abortion. As someone who wants to see a Republican in the white house, I felt that the candidates views on abortion were hurting their image in the eyes of independents who could potentially vote for them. I thought that maybe the Republicans should just stop talking about the issue of abortion and acknowledge their defeat. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was wrong. You can't reasonably expect someone to change their view on something they truly believe in. That's the beauty of America. I can vote for who I feel best represents my ideas, but they won't be me and some of their ideas will be different. I might not agree with Republicans on abortion, but I do respect the fact they have their own beliefs. We as people should be striving to get away from politicians who tell us just everything we want to hear.
Instead this article will be focusing on the statistics and we'll be delving into how the issue of abortion affects Republicans. A Gallup.com poll from 2015 shows that 51% of the (sample) population believes abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. I would fall into that 51%. However, that 51% can also include people who believe abortion should only be legal in cases of rape. Thus when broken down further, the Gallup poll shows that 13% believe abortion should be legal under most situations, and 36% believe it should only be legal in a few situations. Once again though, this is still too broad. The poll also showed that 19% of the population believes that abortion should be illegal in all situations, but an outstanding 10% more of the population (29%) believe abortion should be legal in all situations.
The Gallup poll also showed that steadily over the past few years more people believe abortion should be legal in all situations while the reverse is happening on the other end. Upon more research, I also stumbled upon a Gallup poll though that showed 49% of people are pro-choice versus 44% who identify as pro-life. That gap has been getting smaller over the years. What is also important though is to look at if voters will only vote for a candidate that has the same stance on abortion as them. 23% of pro-lifers will only vote for those who share the same view as them versus 19% on the pro-choice side. In general, 21% of the population would only vote for someone who has the same views as them on abortion. Interesting though, 47% percent believe that abortion is a major issue that is a factor in how they vote versus 27% who don't.
After doing this research, my view changed. I no longer believe that the issue of abortion is hindering Republicans as much as I once thought. Let's be real. If you are one of the 21% who will only vote for someone with the same view on abortion as you then you were probably going to vote for that party to begin with. 47% believe abortion is an important issue to think about, but combined with the 27% who don't then Republicans shouldn't have to worry too much if their view is in the minority.
Sources
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183449/abortion-edges-important-voting-issue-americans.aspx
Back in 2015 this post was going to be about why Republicans should give up on the issue of abortion. As someone who wants to see a Republican in the white house, I felt that the candidates views on abortion were hurting their image in the eyes of independents who could potentially vote for them. I thought that maybe the Republicans should just stop talking about the issue of abortion and acknowledge their defeat. However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized I was wrong. You can't reasonably expect someone to change their view on something they truly believe in. That's the beauty of America. I can vote for who I feel best represents my ideas, but they won't be me and some of their ideas will be different. I might not agree with Republicans on abortion, but I do respect the fact they have their own beliefs. We as people should be striving to get away from politicians who tell us just everything we want to hear.
Instead this article will be focusing on the statistics and we'll be delving into how the issue of abortion affects Republicans. A Gallup.com poll from 2015 shows that 51% of the (sample) population believes abortion should be legal under certain circumstances. I would fall into that 51%. However, that 51% can also include people who believe abortion should only be legal in cases of rape. Thus when broken down further, the Gallup poll shows that 13% believe abortion should be legal under most situations, and 36% believe it should only be legal in a few situations. Once again though, this is still too broad. The poll also showed that 19% of the population believes that abortion should be illegal in all situations, but an outstanding 10% more of the population (29%) believe abortion should be legal in all situations.
The Gallup poll also showed that steadily over the past few years more people believe abortion should be legal in all situations while the reverse is happening on the other end. Upon more research, I also stumbled upon a Gallup poll though that showed 49% of people are pro-choice versus 44% who identify as pro-life. That gap has been getting smaller over the years. What is also important though is to look at if voters will only vote for a candidate that has the same stance on abortion as them. 23% of pro-lifers will only vote for those who share the same view as them versus 19% on the pro-choice side. In general, 21% of the population would only vote for someone who has the same views as them on abortion. Interesting though, 47% percent believe that abortion is a major issue that is a factor in how they vote versus 27% who don't.
After doing this research, my view changed. I no longer believe that the issue of abortion is hindering Republicans as much as I once thought. Let's be real. If you are one of the 21% who will only vote for someone with the same view on abortion as you then you were probably going to vote for that party to begin with. 47% believe abortion is an important issue to think about, but combined with the 27% who don't then Republicans shouldn't have to worry too much if their view is in the minority.
Sources
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/183449/abortion-edges-important-voting-issue-americans.aspx
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Twitter and Facebook
Below are links to the Twitter and Facebook of Moshe Politics. They have links to articles that are not original work of Moshe Politics. Both will usually have the same links. However, the Facebook will have more in depth analysis and the Twitter will have retweets from other people.
https://twitter.com/MoshePoliticsGO
https://www.facebook.com/MoshePolitics/?fref=ts
https://twitter.com/MoshePoliticsGO
https://www.facebook.com/MoshePolitics/?fref=ts
Thursday, February 11, 2016
Welcome to Moshe Politics
Welcome! I have been wanting to make a political blog for a while. I have had to wait to do so until a time where my personal beliefs would not affect my schooling or professional life. I will not be updating this blog every day, week, or maybe even every month. When I have an idea for an article and have time, I will be posting. I will be linking a Twitter account and Facebook page that you can follow. There I will be posting links to other articles I find interesting The blog page will only be for my original content. Lastly, I want to talk about my political leanings. I am pretty moderate. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I definitely lean to the right and you will see some of my bias there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)