During this presidential campaign, many candidates have made hefty promises, such as Republican candidate Donald Trump’s proclamation to abolish nonprofit organization Planned Parenthood or Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders’ guarantee to offer free tuition to two-year institutions. Several candidates have committed to abolishing Obamacare as well. However, the process for overthrowing legislation is more complicated than the candidates discuss.
“[The President has] to work with Congress to accomplish any significant domestic policy goals,” Professor of Political Science James Davenport said. “The Presidency is an office of constrained power.”
Presidential candidates set their platforms with not-so-feasible promises that are used to increase their voters, therefore increase their chances of being elected. After being elected, seldom do the promises made on the campaign trail make it past Congress and become obtainable legislation. When these promises are not met, citizens become irritated with the government and skeptical of the president.
Additionally, Congress is the only one with the ability to write laws. With Congress having their own body of voters they are accountable to, it becomes almost impossible to align views of so many different parties to achieve most of the president’s goals.
According to The Hill, the candidate’s campaigning promises will have far less to do with how they will govern or if the people will agree with the changes the candidate makes on policies. These campaign promises are ultimately misleading to the public.
“Voters expect candidates at all levels, especially candidates for president, to make big promises. Then when they don’t deliver, we become cynical. However, if they don’t make these promises, voters aren’t motivated to vote for them,” Davenport said.
With the additional endeavor of finding ways to get politicians elected by different groups who have different priorities, as well as members of different political parties, Davenport says it is sometimes shocking that anything gets accomplished at all.
“Unfortunately, it is the dance we have created between voters and candidates.”
During the holiday season, Starbucks has generally been a contributor to the festivities. This year, however, the chain is facing some backlash from the public for their choice on the Christmas cup décor.
In the past, the cups have had designs on them such as snowflakes, snowmen and tree ornaments.
This year Starbucks kept the cup sans Christmassy decoration and left it plain red with a slight ombre from top to bottom. Christians are taking to social media to protest what some are calling an “outrage.”
One man started the social media controversy, claiming Starbucks’ cup was their attempt to take Christmas out of the holidays. Christians and non-Christians alike have mocked this movement, pointing out the relevance the coffee cup has to Jesus’ birthday – none.
The cup is promoting inclusiveness and non-denominational celebration. Having a plain colored cup is allowing the establishment to celebrate the season with customers from every religion, not just Christians. There seems to be a popular trend of over-sensitivity that America has faced this year, proving the saying that nobody can please everyone to be incredibly accurate.
Is Starbucks’ plain cup design an example of the “war on Christmas” that protesters are claiming it is? I do not think so. It is a cup. It holds hot coffee so customers can have their caffeine to go.
If they had left their cups the same as they are year round, would that be an even bigger sign of Starbucks’ evident want to eliminate the celebration of Christmas? Many are exhilarated to see the seasonal cups. I, for one, say way to go to Starbucks for providing a cup that welcomes all religions to join them in observing the joyous holiday season.
Is the risk greater than the reward?
On the morning of Aug. 26, report Alison Parker and cameraman Adam Ward were killed on live television.
I briefly heard about this when leaving class one day and honestly thought nothing of it. When I arrived in the newsroom, I jumped on Facebook and started reading what happened.
"Why would someone do this to innocent people? What did they do to deserve this?" was my initial reaction, along with numerous other questions.
This event made me rethink my whole career path. "Why would I want to be involved in something that has the potential to be so dangerous?" crossed my mind several times as well. There is a big risk that comes with being a journalist. Some risk their reputation for a story, some risk their jobs and some risk everything to do a job so many people do not necessarily consider dangerous.
Parker and Ward were just doing what they love when they were shot and killed. It is a risk journalists will have to take.
Is the risk greater than the reward? The reward is informing the public about the errors as well as the joys of everyday life. The reward is giving the information that viewers and readers crave.
A recent study conducted by the Nexus Research and Policy Center and the American Institutes for Research determined that 30 states have some community colleges whose graduates’ median lifetime earnings are less than those earned by high school graduates.