Cruz Under Fire

Cruz Under Fire



     Ted Cruz has been taking some heat recently from some of his biggest campaign supporters. Many of Cruz's backers are angry at Cruz for not being aggressive enough. They think the reason that he's not been winning the race for the republican nomination is the fact that he's not being the "crusader against Washington" that he is. They think that he's not being aggressive enough towards the current government, which is why Trump has been so successful, and they think that he's not been aggressive enough in directly countering Trump himself. Another issue that Cruz's supporters are concerned about is that fact that he has been so far unable to neutralize Marco Rubio and turn the republican primary into a two-man race. Do you think Cruz has a chance at the nomination? What should Cruz change if he wants to see success similar to that of Trump's?

Trump wins Nevada

Trump Wins Nevada



     Donald Trump recently won the Nevada caucus by a wide margin. He continued his trend of blowing out the rest of the republican competition, carrying 46% of the delegates. Trump has been utilizing the anger shared by many young voters, especially republicans, to rally support and secure more votes. He's somewhat of a political outsider and his views are radical, so its been a surprise that he's been as successful as he has been. At this point, as much as GOP dislikes him, it's hard to see an outcome that doesn't involve Trump winning the republican nomination. Rubio and Cruz virtually tied for second in Nevada; however, it looks less and less like either of the two can be considered as plausible winners of the primary. Do you think that Trump should win the nomination? Why do you think Trump has been so successful in his campaign even given his radical ideology and lack of political experience.

Why Sandy Hook Parents are Suing a Gunmaker

Why Sandy Hook Parents are Suing a Gunmaker

In December 2012, Sandy Hook Elementary School experienced a shooting that would change the lives of families and community members forever. 26 people (six were adults, twenty children) were killed by gunman Adam Lanza, and the parents of the deceased are now fighting to sue gun distributing company Remington, who manufactured and sold the used firearm. The company argues the 2005 federal law, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, protects them, because it says the gun manufacturers are granted immunity "from any lawsuit related to injuries that result from criminal misuse of the product". Parents argue back the loophole of "negligent entrustment", which says that one party can be held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party with a dangerous instrument. Remington never came in contact with the shooter when selling, so families are pointing that to be negligent. What do you think the verdict of this lawsuit will be? Do you think the Sandy Hook families are stretching it with their accusals towards Remington, or should the gun company be held responsible?

Jeb Bush's Doomed Campaign

Jeb Bush's Doomed Campaign

Now former US Presidential Candidate Jeb Bush has dropped out of the race, after admitting that 2016 was "simply not his year". He had shown poor results in polls over the past few months, but the New Hampshire primary had him coming in fourth and beating Marco Rubio- an encouraging triumph, but it wasn't enough to save his campaign. When Bush started to realize he wasn't going to be as big as he'd originally planned, he claimed "slow and steady wins the race", and was even known to hand out toy turtles to kids. Slow and steady didn't do it for Jeb, and we never would have anticipated this a year ago when Bush was an anticipated GOP front runner. What do you think killed his candidacy? Or was it doomed to begin with? Do you think his association with the Bush family had anything to do with it, even though Jeb stated several times during his campaign, "I am my own man"?

Pope Says Trump 'Not Christian' in a Sign of Global Concern

Pope Francis made headlines yesterday after he criticized Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, calling Trump's position on immigration "not Christian." Trump then responded, saying that Pope Francis was "disgraceful" for questioning his faith. Trump has previously said that Mexico sends rapists and drug-runners in the United States and promises to build a wall to keep said people out of the country, at the expense of the Mexican government. Many have questioned if the Pope's comments will prove to be damaging or beneficial to Trump's campaign. 71 percent of Americans identify as Christian today, so they might side with the Pope. Do you think what the Pope said will hurt or help Trump? Also, do you think it was justified for the Pope to say what he said?

Scalia’s Death Offers Best Chance in a Generation to Reshape Supreme Court

With the recent passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, an opening in the supreme court has presented itself. The court now has four conservative justices and four liberal justices, meaning whoever the president nominates could determine if the court is held by a majority of liberal or conservative justices. The Supreme Court has been controlled by conservatives for several decades, and now Obama has a real chance of changing that, stating that, "The court is now divided on many issues. This would be a deciding vote." If a liberal justice joins the Supreme Court, it could make a huge difference in cases like Citizens United, which passed with a 5-4 vote. This would also help to shape cases like abortion laws and gun rights in the future. Many experts, however have pointed out that any change will be gradual. This is a huge decision for Obama, and further complicates the current presidential race. Do you think that the Obama will choose to nominate a moderate or a liberal judge. Also, do you think that the Senate will decline his nomination, should he nominate someone liberal?

White House Chides Schumer for Protest of Counterterrorism Cuts

Senator Chuck Schumer of New York recently drew criticism from the Obama Administration for complaining about cuts to the security budget for the state's urban areas. These cuts come after much of the Homeland Security grants given to the state over past few years went unspent. Schumer, however, argues that the funds should still remain available even if most of the money is not spent. Do you think the threat of terrorism and other hostile activities is real enough to warrant this type of increased funding? Do you agree with Senator Schumer or the Obama Administration? Is there such a thing as too little spending when safety is on the line? Conversely, how much spending is too much for this type of issue?