Obama vs. Romney: War

War is a huge issue that Obama and Romney differ on. I don’t agree with having our people overseas for the fact that that it’s not because of 911 anymore.  I don’t agree with going over to a country just to mess with the way they do things, if they’re not picking fights with us. The fact is that there are so many problems within the United States to focus on instead of other country’s problems.  Yeah maybe we could help make the world a better place, but we can’t do it by ourselves.  Where there is man there will always be war.  Of course, there could always be world peace, but for that to happen, it will be a looooong time.  A lot of people have told me and I have overheard people saying that we are only over there because of the oil. Maybe, maybe not. I’m not saying that that is the reason we’re there, but if it is, why go into another country and take their resources? Or buy it from them so we can be in more debt??  It gives us even more reason to be more fuel efficient!  I do happen to agree with Romney on some of the points of this topic:

“Increase strength of armed forces, including number of troops and warships, adding almost $100 billion to the Pentagon budget in 2016.”

Not with the money being added. But increasing strength yes!  We’re stupid to think that something like 911 or another war is not going to happen in our lifetime, because it might.  And I think we should be prepared.  War is sometimes unpredictable and though I hate it, we have to defend our homes, our faith, our families, and our country with everything we got.

Marriage and the 10th Amendment

The 10th amendment clearly states that, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." To me, this means that the definition of marriage is a state issue. It should be within the state's authority, through our system of representative government, to decide what the state, and its residents, will recognize as marriage. Under DOMA, states are not required to recognize same-gender marriages that would be recognized in states like Connecticut. This is constitutional; everyone in that state is being treated equally. That state, and its Constitution, does not recognize same-gender marriages for anyone. Is it in violation of the 14th amendment for states to have different laws in regards to taxes? New Hampshire doesn't have a state income or sales tax, but North Carolina does. Is this a violation of the 14th amendment, because not everyone is being treated completely equally. It's a matter of opinion, residents decide what they think will be best for their state, marriage laws included.

Fiscal Federalism

There is a proverb that says, "Money is the root of all evil." I am sure that you have heard that before.  We all know that you have to have money to survive.  In this economy, though, it seems that free money is in short supply.  States, like ours, are struggling to pay for education.  Class sizes are larger, teachers are fewer, course offerings are limited, etc. and etc.  The up side of the tough economy means that there will be fewer standardized tests this year.  No longer will an EOC test score be able to hold you back or save you in the end.  Testing is expensive.  But a new kind of testing is on the horizon. This old testing plan was key to our state implementing the No Child Left Behind law. This law is now being dismantled by President Obama's Education plan called Race to the Top.  Tied to Obama's reform is money...free money to those states that "play" by the new rules.  This nationalization of school standards is controversial for so many reasons, but does that make it a bad plan? I personally feel like the educational systems in general should have no federal government interference at all. Now, I feel like the "Race to the Top" is a waste. One, the teachers are directly affected by the students, which is a horrid decision. There are always those students who refuse to learn, refuse to participate, and refuse to actually TRY and do the tests which are given to them to assess the teachers; which is completely unfair to the teachers who work so hard and long hours, with very little pay. Its ridiculous what the federal government tries to do to the educational systems, with both the 'Race to the Top' and 'No Child Left Behind'. Even though, I do like NCLB more than the other, because of the fact it lets the STATES create the tests and the standards for the children, but I still don't like the fact that the federal government is trying to intervene in something that they shouldn't.

Immigration

After pondering the topic, I honestly don’t have a strong stance on this debate. The only particular subject I have a definite take on is that any illegal immigrant found in this country (or any country, for that matter) should be treated as humanely as legal citizens are. Illegal immigrants are as human as us whether they have naturalization papers or not. I also don’t agree with the part in the Arizona law wherein police can randomly check someone for proper documentation. There are so many issues with this, but mainly it goes against what our Founding Fathers would call ‘God given, unalienable rights.’ Certain people might classify this as a liberal attitude, but I believe that all people are born equal to each other no matter what or who you are and should be treated as such. I think that the current policies for handling immigrants are inhumane and go against the natural rights of people. The law in Arizona allowing police to randomly check papers of people seems unconstitutional. I agree that we need to crack down on illegal immigration, but this isn't the way to do it. By creating no-tolerance policies that specifically target Hispanics, all that we're doing is breeding racism and hate. Personally, I think that illegal aliens currently in America should be given amnesty and be allowed to apply for citizenship the same as every other immigrant. At the same time, we should also increase border protection and control to prevent more illegal immigrants from crossing the border.My family immigrated to the Us, but they did so legally, and though others can come into this country as well, they need to do it properly. 

Americans Now Say Gov't Should Not Favor Any Set of Values

In reading the article "Americans Now Say Gov't Should Not Favor Any Set of Values" just goes to show how split we are as a nation. The orthodox view involves maintaing and promoting traditional values, whereas, the progressive view believes that no values shall be possessed by our government. Back in the late 1990's, and then again in the period after 9/11, people favored the tradional values heavily because of the patriotism and unification that spurred from the attacks. However, since then apathy has corroded the minds of many, especially our new generatinos, which has caused the transformation to 52% for no values, and 44% for traditional values. Personally, I feel that a successful government is built by a coalition of many ideas and opinions, including the tradional values that made this country so great in the first place. With that in mind, I understand that times are changing and that we can not wallow in the past, but that doesn't mean we should abandon common sense values--neither should our elected officials. My conflict with the notion of "favoring no values" is that it is merely impossible for man (mankind as a whole, you feminists!) to be objective at all times when deciding on what is best for the American people through the voices of the people. At some point we must come to conclusion that the government consists of human beings who rationalize and think for themselves (I hope, anyways), which means that values are bound to arise in order for this nation to continue and prosper.

Political Socialization

I found this amusing story online:
"About 10 years ago we had a teacher at Currituck High named Mr. K. He was and still is a staunch Republican. He taught a class called Current Issues. This was a very popular class because Mr. K knew his stuff and loved to debate with his liberal students about anything and everything. He would get so riled up when they would defend taxing the rich even more. So, he devised a diabolical plan. To convince his students that income redistribution was wrong, he began a program called "grade redistribution." The plan worked like this: Students who made 93 or higher would lose 3 points from their grade and these points would be added to the students' scores that were the lowest. Students who made between 85-92 would lose 2 points that would also be added to those students who made low scores. Now, I really don't think I need to tell you much more except that his plan caused a huge uproar; but more importantly he illustrated his point without ever implementing it."

Politics have always been something that my family talks about, but we are always very neutral. We will bring up both points of an argument without it ever really getting heated. I think the only time I have ever seen the political discussion get to a point where it actually shaped what I believed was when my parents were arguing about the monthly medicine bill. My father was arguing that if the country would just budget itself we could make room for what he called common health care and my mother was arguing that to any needed programs, like parenthood development and welfare, would take a beating if this were ever to happen. Now me being about nine at the time didn't really see any flaw in this plan, but now thinking back on it, I find it comical that he had this idea that our government could ever really agree to cut spending to implement a program like this. But when I was nine, I couldn't help but think that whoever came up with this idea was genius. I mean, health care that everyone could have and that everyone would be treated equal when it came to its distribution. This conversation is probably one of the main ones that makes me lean more left than right most of the time. The idea of everyone being taken care of, although it is not exactly ideal, is one that I favor greatly.

Voter Demographics

http://results.enr.clarityelections.com/NC/Currituck/42950/113143/Web01/en/scrolling.html

Based on the data from the link, we can safely assume the majority of Currituck voters are Republican. Consistently, when the votes are between a Democratic and Republican candidate, the percents average about 65% Republican votes and 34% Democratic votes. From this we can conclude, of the 64% that voted, it is likely 65% of them were of Republican tendencies and 34% of Democratic tendencies. 64.05% of Currituck's voting population participated in this past election, which is about 300 more people when compared to last year's statistics. This election brought out more of the voting population than last year, which means an increase in public interest. 246 voters, in the presidential election, voted for either Gary Johnson or a write-in president. These voters must have been incredibly stubborn or indifferent as to how the election turned out, because they must have understood their votes were going towards a candidate who would not win. Since these voters cared enough to leave their homes and vote at the polls, I would have to assume they had some motive, a reason to express their opinion. Either way, 246 votes were spent on candidates who couldn't win rather than influencing the election.