Fact-checking the Las Vegas GOP debate

Linda Qiu - PolitiFact

On Tuesday night in Las Vegas the Republican presidential candidates once again took the stage for their final debate of 2015. The first debate since the terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, national security and strategies to defeat ISIS were anticipated to be and were contentious topics of debate. In personal jabs at recent statements or voting records, each candidate asserted the merits or their position on each issue while attacking other candidates' proposed solutions.

However, many facts, statistics, or other things cited by candidates during the debate simply weren't true. The website PolitiFact is dedicated to analyzing politicians' statements and assessing their factuality, picking out some key points from the debate and with this being the final debate before the primary season officially begins, most of what candidates have said will be what sticks with their base and will be quoted as "fact" into the election season.

What impact does truthfulness (or lack there of) of candidates public assertions have on the public during the election season?

Should candidates be reprimanded for incorrect statements?

Where is the line between bending the truth for a political purpose and actual slander?

If restrictions were enacted, could candidates simply misspeaking put them at risk?

How terrorism in France could shape an election in America

Night of Terror: Paris Attacks

A body, covered by a sheet, is seen on the sidewalk outside the Bataclan theater

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/14/politics/paris-attacks-2016-presidential-candidates/

Due to the recent events that have been happening around the world by a group called ISIS, many candidates that are currently running for presidency have changed their stance and ideologies upon tackling the now current world issue. While they have already responded and commented about the incidents, each candidate didn't seem to have any understanding of what to do or any strategy whatsoever. It was noted that "they seemed to encapsulate the impotence of politicians who so far have only words to combat a burgeoning terror threat." Although they could not answer the questions to help boost their own stance in the runnings they were able to "offer a confident contrast with an administration that now appears to lack success in the fight against terrorism." The GOP candidates have now turned the table by using these events to attack the Democratic party and those who run under the Obama administration, namely Hillary Clinton. It goes without saying that it was a harsh political irony that the killings in France took place on the same day that an interview aired in which the President argued that his strategy had "contained" ISIS in Iraq and Syria, although it was still a better response than Trump who for instance, said this week that he would "bomb the s--- out of ISIS." The GOP have already turned this crisis into an opportunity to grant them leverage by arguing that they should increase restrictions on immigration policies and gun control. To quote Trump, "When you look at Paris -- you know the toughest gun laws in the world, Paris -- nobody had guns but the bad guys. You can say what you want, but if they had guns, if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry ... it would've been a much, much different situation." The former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has already weighed in on the situation by saying that "if a left-wing, politically correct country like France will close its borders, it's time for us to put a moratorium on people coming here from countries where there are people with al Qaeda or ISIS ties," calling for a stricter set of regulations for immigration. But the Paris attacks also expose Republicans to political vulnerabilities over ISIS. While the GOP loves the kind of hawkish rhetoric that Rubio and others doled out at a presidential debate in Milwaukee, America remains weary of foreign wars, leaving little political room for the new commitments proposed by Republicans. And the legacy of President George W. Bush, whom many Democrats blame for ripping the lid off boiling sectarian strife in the Middle East with the invasion of Iraq, continues to haunt the GOP when it comes to national security policy.

How will these events affect the campaigns by both parties? What is your opinion on each party's stance and response to these situations(might want to read full article)? What do you think we should do in terms of foreign policy? What is your opinion on the matter?

What do we define as Islamophobia?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWNv97yq4Fc

            In light of recent events, there has been an increased dialogue into the conversation of Islamophobia or prejudice against Muslims. Bill Maher has been on the receiving end of a lot claims that he is prejudiced, and is unjustly putting down Islam. Maher's argument is that we as a society must question religion itself and not be scared out of having conversations questioning religions because some may deem those conversations as prejudiced. He claims Islam, or Shariah law (the laws that govern Islamic theocracies) promotes anti-progressive ideas. He cites anti-feminist laws such as forced female circumcisions, how woman can get married at any age and as a byproduct raped at any age, and how some women can't leave there houses without male supervision as instances of institutional sexism in these countries. He also points to laws that allow Gays who have come out to be killed as instances of homophobia or hate that as byproduct of not questioning Islam we are in some way allowing. He does concede that some people receive a grace from Islam and can coexist within the religion whilst disagreeing with these hateful acts. He says however that these people are are not the majority, he also doesn't claim radical islamic groups are the majority either, he says the majority is somewhere in between the two. The majority, to Maher, is one that accepts Shariah law and allows the unprogressive hateful acts to be continued. He does not blame the people but rather the dogma of this specific religion. What do you think? Is disagreeing with Islam inherently prejudiced? Is Maher being prejudiced? Is disagreeing with theocracies and Shariah Law prejudiced? What is Islamophobia?

Colbert interviewing Maher

On Monday, Stephen Colbert interviewed Bill Maher – a comedian, talk show host of "Real Time" and a staunch liberal. Though the two are generally both considered to tend towards the far left wing, the interview was filled with awkward conversations and confrontations. For example, in response to Stephen saying that though he "sucks" as a Catholic, religion gives him a "connection to our ancestors," Maher replied with, "These were men who did not know what a germ or an atom was, or where the sun went at night, and that's where you're getting your wisdom from. Anyway, but let's not argue." This interaction was especially odd because Maher was portraying Colbert as being much more religious and conservative than most others would consider him to be. In the face of the recent ISIS attacks on Paris, Maher asserted that "if only ISIS believes that anyone who leaves the religion should be killed, well, then maybe we can finally kill all of ISIS. But what if that is 20, 30, 40% of all Muslim people in the world?" Though not his intention, Maher brought up a touchy subject by insisting that a large portion of the Muslim religion is inherently bad.


Maher could be considered a liberal extremist, but liberal ideology places a huge emphasis on freedoms - freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of marriage etc. When someone is liberal to an extreme, do their beliefs come full circle and resemble conservative beliefs (Maher criticized the Islamic religion for being sexist, but in doing so suggested that all Muslims shared this belief)? Is it more important to protects some groups' rights over others? In this time of crisis (ISIS attacks), is subjugating Muslims to some sets of stereotypes for the purpose of protecting the majority of people morally permissible?

AUMF After Paris Attacks

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/where-do-2016-contenders-stand-on-the-military-fight-against-isis/

This week, the Obama administration is expected to send in a request for an AUMF against ISIS, in light of recent terrorist attacks in Paris. The AUMF proposed by Obama allows ground troops to be planted in certain scenarios, but it prohibits the use of "enduring offensive ground forces". The previous draft of the AUMF outlined the use of ground troops for specific operations, but many politicians running for the presidency are advocating for a different AUMF. Many contenders for the presidency were questioned this week on their stance on the current AUMF, and conflicting views were offered. Many of the candidates hold the unifying view that the United States will have to involved in some manner in the Middle East to end the terrorism of ISIS. However, the degree of involvement varies by candidate. Lindsey Graham argues that the issue with ISIS cannot be resolved without American troops being deployed in the Middle East, whereas Marco Rubio is in favor of pursuing an international coalition with the support of Iraqi and Kurdish forces. While the plans offered by each candidate were non-specific, none of the candidates have ruled out the use of ground forces in the Middle East.


Do you agree with the political leaders that American military involvement is required? Why do you think all the candidates believe military involvement is the key to ending terrorism? What level of military involvement do you think is appropriate? Do you think their responses were formed too quickly (do we have all the facts)?

Ohio Voters Choose Economic Fairness Over Legalized Marijuana

Voters in Ohio Reject Marijuana Legalization Amendment - New York Times

Ohio Now a Battleground State For Marijuana - CBS News

Ohio Marijuana Legalization: Investors Insist There's No Monopoly - CNN Money

On Election Day, Ohio decisively voted against a statewide measure, called Issue 3, that would allow for the use of marijuana for both medicinal and recreational purposes throughout the state. At first glance, it seems as if this is a loss for those in favor of legalizing marijuana. They believed that if Ohio, a political battleground state, were to legalize marijuana, other states would follow. However, this issue is not as black and white as legalization has been in many other states.

Prior to Election Day, polls done in Ohio had shown that the majority of Ohio citizens were in favor of legalization, so why was it voted down? The reason it was rejected had to do with its economics and the issue of monopoly. Issue 3, while legalizing the use of marijuana, would have put huge limits on its sale. If it had been passed, only marijuana grown from 10 farms (which are operated by the 25 investors who funded the measure and its campaign) could be sold. Citizens would be able to grow marijuana for personal use, but they could not sell it. Many people, including those in favor of marijuana legalization, campaigned against the measure due to the monopoly it would give these investors. Instead of allowing a free market to emerge, passing Issue 3 would lead to a few wealthy investors controlling the entire marijuana economy in the state, which they can manipulate for their own gain. Although they want marijuana legalized, they believe it would be better to wait for a new measure that discourages monopoly in the industry to be passed. On the other hand, people in favor of the measure argue that 10 competing farms is not a monopoly and that they deserve to have a lot of power over the marijuana economy, due to their important roles in getting it legalized and all the money they spent (which totaled to over $20 million).

If you were an Ohio voter who favored the legalization of marijuana, would you vote against Issue 3 because of its economic issues? Do you consider the power the investors would have had over the marijuana economy to be a monopoly, even if there are 10 separate farms competing? Is the control given to the investors by Issue 3 unfair, or is it justified?

GOP Debate Debacle

Last Wednesday night, October 27th, The GOP presidential debate featuring the top Republican candidates came to an end with many people around the country asking questions about the “questions”. The Republican presidential candidates were very critical on the way the CNBC moderators handled the event. The moderators were supposed to be responsible for facilitating the debate by helping open the door on certain topics so the American viewers could become more acquainted with those who are running, and get a feel for their respective agendas. However, that night some “personal” questions were posed by the CNBC moderators, most of which were embarrassing to candidates, showcasing them in a bad light.

The Republican’s felt that many of the important questions referring to the country's future that were asked in the democratic party debate were eluded. GOP candidate Ben Carson was among those disappointed with CNBC and expressed his concerns saying, “We need a change of format. Debates are supposed to be to 'get to know the candidates,' what is behind them. What it has turned into is a gotcha." ‎Another Candidate who found the questions frustrating was Carly Fiorina who was repeatedly bombarded with questions about remarks she made previously about planned parenthood. After the debate she criticized the “liberal media” for their lack of questions geared to address the more posing issues a president elect might face. Brian Steel, CNBC's senior vice president for public relations, later responded to complaints from the Republican party standing by the moderators' performance saying, "People who want to be President of the United States should be able to answer tough questions." The Republicans were furious claiming that the moderators intentionally gave them “useless” questions, while the Democrats were given questions more relevant to the major issues during their debate. To address their concerns, the Republican’s have decided to abandon CNBC and have scheduled their next debate to be hosted by Fox Business on November 10th.

Were the CNBC moderators within their bounds to ask questions that focused primarily on the personal issues of candidates, placing them in difficult situations? Was it ok for the Republicans to lash out against the moderators for eluding the important questions asked during the Democratic party’s debate? Is the GOP’s action to leave CNBC for Fox business in the next debate justifiable? Did the political bias of CNBC have anything to do with the entire ordeal?