Part 212 – How to Lose Everything in 5 Minutes (Trump’s Version)

Part 212 – How to Lose Everything in 5 Minutes (Trump’s Version)

24 February 2025 marked the 3rd anniversary of the start of the Russo-Ukrainian War. 

In what would have seemed an unsettling war, peace talks have finally begun following the establishment of the Trump administration, suggesting a possible end. However, these peace talks haven’t been what we expected. 

For instance, President Trump has had several meetings with President Putin regarding the war and supposedly planning a ceasefire and terms without the presence of President Zelenskyy. President Biden is no longer in the White House, which means his policies on the Russo-Ukrainian War are no longer America’s current policies. President Trump is a far different person, in morals, views, and attitudes in many things, including the war. He has decided to stop helping Ukraine, including giving them military aid, and has decided to stop the war once and for all. He devised a possible deal regarding minerals and resources and met with President Zelenskyy to discuss it. However, in the aftermath of the meeting, it seemed unlikely that there would ever be any deal or assistance from the United States again. (I wanted to note that I wanted to post this blog around the time the meeting occurred, but got busy with school and SAT work, making me put this off until now.)

President Trump and President Putin meeting together

As you would have seen and heard, the meeting between President Trump and Zelenskyy turned into a yelling match, and trust me, it was not pretty. More than that, it became heated and very one-sided, with President Trump stepping over President Zelenskyy, while the latter ended up silenced in the process. Not only that, the entire ordeal took place in front of the American media and several white house advisors, workers, and officials. 

My Analysis:

I feel like this is a very gross representation of America. Simply put, it’s not who we are; it’s a very shameful representation of us, and is even more disconcerting seeing it come from our President and Vice President. We are a country well known for helping others. We’ve protected other countries, big and small, formed numerous alliances, and created treaties to maintain stability and peace with others. While we have no obligation to continue doing so every time, we should at least hold the level of respect we have always given and been given to and from others regardless of what is happening. Not just because they are leaders but because it is the right thing to do. In this situation, because the two- President Trump and Zelenskyy- are leaders of their country, they are of, essentially, the same level. While President Zelenskyy may be coming to the White House with little power in the war, he still should be treated with respect. Even if it came to the point where President Zelenskyy had to beg for help to save his country, he still should be treated with respect. 

At this moment, President Zelenskyy made a mistake when talking- he got too emotional and said something he shouldn’t have. But what was worse was President Trump and Vice President Vance dragging this out even more, escalating the argument.

What I didn’t like about this was how both President Trump and VP Vance started to belittle and point fingers at Zelenskyy. VP Vance started accusing  President Zelenskyy, telling him this was disrespectful and he could not go and “litigate this in front of the American media.” President Zelenskyy asked VP Vance what diplomacy he was referring to VP Vance had said that they were using diplomacy to manage the situation, unlike Biden- while explaining the 2014 Crimea Annexation and how no one paid much attention to what happened then. I understand his side here. President Zelenskyy has been trying to fight this war for the past 3 years, but he’s constantly overpowered. He knows he’s losing and is desperate. He needs support, especially from the United States who have the resources and alliance he needs. But when people tell him diplomacy is the option, he’s upset. The last time there was a diplomatic approach, it was ignored, and there is now a war. He’s frustrated, and his emotions get the best of him. It was wrong, and he shouldn’t have tried to counter that. But even more, President Trump, who was listening quietly on the side, should not have intervened other than to break it up. He should have stepped in and told both to stop or even walked out, saying he didn’t want to engage with this. But unfortunately, he did not. 

President Trump’s behavior was petty and very unprofessional. President Trump started to belittle and put down President Zelenskyy, telling Zelenskyy that he was not in any position to be playing cards, and began characterizing President Zelenskyy, saying he has hatred for Putin and that it was hard to work with him. He then talks over President Zelenskyy repeatedly – essentially silencing him- about how President Zelenskyy has been ungrateful and disrespectful and needs a better attitude to make this deal work. To me, it’s really childish and altogether hypocritical. President Trump started to talk down President Zelenskyy, shouting over him and telling him to stop talking, when, as President Zelenskyy pointed out, he was invited to the White House to converse and started calling President Biden a stupid president. He then proceeds to mock President Zelenskyy and goes off about how it’s all a whole Hunter Biden scam.

First of all, if someone is demanding respect from someone else, that first person has to show respect first. President Trump can’t go around demanding respect from President Zelenskyy when President Trump himself has been acting arrogantly and disrespectfully many times in that whole argument. To chastise someone for being disrespectful in the White House and Oval Office while calling a former president a stupid president just in that same space is incredibly hypocritical. President Biden was a former president and deserves the same respect for his name as President Trump, regardless of whether he was a great president or not or even if President Trump liked him. 

Secondly, it’s all so petty and childish. Mocking people? Pointing fingers and screaming at each other? This is not how a President of a respected country should act, nor should he act this way towards another leader, especially not in public. This whole part of putting down President Biden and continuously bringing him up to make yourself look better is petty. This is a diplomatic situation. You should not be saying things like this or even acting like this. Saying that you’re giving “javelins” while the other presidents are giving sheets and saying that you’re the only one who can fix this is unbelievably arrogant. 

President Trump and President Zelenskyy get into a shouting match over mineral resources deal

He is the face of the United States. When people think of America, they think of the president, they’re thinking of President Trump. But when President Trump starts disrespecting other presidents and acts as childish and arrogant as we see here, it shows that every American is like this. His attitude is a reflection of all the American people. At that moment, he represents the voices and views of every American, and to show himself as that is awful. He’s making America look bad, ruining our reputation by acting this way. People will know and think that Americans are full of themselves, are bullies towards other countries, and belittle them in a time of need. I understand that President Trump doesn’t want to support this war any longer. He was upset by President Zelenskyy’s outburst and by President Biden’s actions and policies in aid. But he should not have acted as unprofessionally as he did. What’s even worse is how he ends the argument saying it’s great for American media. So basically, humiliating another leader in front of public television for the whole world to see was a joke? Was it good entertainment? Was there not anyone in that room who could have stopped them? Or was it planned the whole time to humiliate President Zelenskyy and attack him to make him look bad? I highly doubt it, but surely there’d be a group of advisors or staff monitoring every word, or stopping the argument before it got heated. 

Not only that, this entire meeting was for the purpose of working out a deal or even end of the Russo-Ukraine War. WIth this entire moment, not only did President Zelenskyy potentially lose the opportunity of ending the war, but President Trump also lost the potential minerals he would have gained, as well as any future prospects of countries being willing to work with him after his behavior. President Trump’s attitude and behavior towards President Zelenskyy would have, and has been, condemned by several other countries and could result in consequences in the future. What if America needs help in the future but are refused help after its attitude during the meeting? I think it would be unlikely, but it’s still a possibility. To have everything go away just like that in a quick moment is not worth it in any way possible. Both sides should have kept that in mind during the meeting then, and yet they didn’t.

This entire argument was a major embarrassment for the whole country. President Trump could have gotten upset at that moment, but there are thousands of other things he could have said or done that wouldn’t have resulted in the outcome we saw.  Everything that happened was purely childish. I’ve seen teenagers discuss things of little importance with far better communication and maturity than in that video altogether. President Trump publicly humiliated another leader and had little empathy afterward, saying it was great entertainment. President Trump may not like President Zelenskyy or may disagree with President Biden’s policies in aiding Ukraine in this war, but that does not mean he has the right to belittle and disrespect them, all while preaching respect and gratitude from Zelenskyy for helping his country. President Zelenskyy does not have the upper hand and knows that. He may have been in the wrong, but President Trump having the upper hand should not have taken advantage of that, nor stooped to a lower level to berate him even further. He should have at most walked out, or stopped the situation then and there to prevent it from escalating. This whole argument for having a diplomatic approach does not involve talking about who’s the better president,  whose fault it is, or whether it’s all a scam. It implicates talking things out, asking questions, and setting limits or requirements for a solution to benefit all sides. Purposefully talking down someone, calling a former president stupid, and making it seem like you’re the greatest is hypocritical and childish. It frustrates me because really what was the purpose? Why was there a need to say that it’s a Hunter-Biden scam, to start saying things like ‘you don’t have any cards’  and even start mocking and characterizing President Zelenskyy in all of this? It’s upsetting because all the ‘great media’ that supposedly came out of this is just showing the world how arrogant President Trump is and essentially making America look bad as a whole. 

Part 207- Post 2024 Election

Part 207- Post 2024 Election

Whenever I tell people that I want to be a Biomedical Lawyer I’m either met with a reaction of consciousness, amazement, or uncertainty. What does that mean; where did the idea even come from; how do you plan to do this? I get those questions very often. The biggest being about the ‘lawyer’ part. As a child I’ve always been influenced by my mother and her love for biology so it was no surprise when I appealed to the same thing. But law? That’s an entirely different profession altogether.

My story and interest for law traces back to a few years ago, in the early COVID days. I’m not sure when exactly I decided I wanted to become a lawyer, but I do remember watching the series West Wing a lot and really just being fascinated with the schematics of how the White House worked, the different jobs and tasks everyone takes on and the just in general what everything meant. As a kid I had no clue about what bipartisanship or trickle-down economics was, or why filibusters were crucial for one party at times, but I was hooked. I wanted to understand what that was like, be a part of it. I slowly took to politics, eager to learn. That was also around the time when the 2020/2021 election was starting up. I remember following primaries and caucuses, wanting to learn more and sitting in for presidential debates. When I was much younger, around elementary school, during the 2016 election our school had allowed us to participate in the election in our own way by fake voting, and the results were announced at the end of the the day just before we were let out. At the time none of us had a clue about politics, what each of them stood for, but rather that there were two candidates and one was more appealing than the other. In 2020-2021 when I looked back to that moment I found it amusing how much has changed with my profound interest in politics. I was partially disappointed with the presidential debates, not being as thrilled as I hoped or understanding enough to be fully engaged, but it was still exciting to me. And at last came the fully anticipated Election Day where I took the day off from online school to live blog on the election, posting about each state won or lost, the economy (even though I didn’t understand much) and my opinions. It took two days for results to fully came in and by then I was exhausted, but it was a very memorable experience.I remember hearing and tuning in to the 2021 Capitol riots firsthand and being mortified. Was this really true? Was this really happening in our own country? When did it, or moreover, why did it get to this point?

Leading us to today, in 2024, exactly 4 days after the election. I think this was a particularly nasty election, in the way that elections have progressed these past few years as well as the general responses from both sides. Before we get into that let me tell you where I was this past Tuesday.

I am still unable to vote, being below the required age limit. However, I still wanted to be invested within the election process since it is an incredibly important day and moment for not just us as a country, but also many other countries within the world. Instead of doing another live election series, I worked as a Poll Worker. For about 10 hours that day, I sat and printed ballots, checked in voters, and assisted others when needed to help with the election process. When one can’t vote why not try a different way to participate instead? In short, as much as a memorable experience as it as, it was very boring. It may be possible because the precinct I was working at was brand new, and many of them early voted, but it was a very drawn out turn out. In my opinion, I feel that there was far more to the voting process than I first believed. Prior to working I needed to complete a Poll Worker training which entailed operation of the machines used, appropriate behavior form the election workers as well as for the incoming voters, and much more. Far more goes into planning and taking care for the election and voting process than I believed. And, there is also the fact that we performed one version of the voting process with paper ballots while some do digital voting.

For us, the process of voting went like this:
First, get checked in using an ID. This includes a drivers license or permit, as well as other forms of acceptable photo ID, followed by confirmation of address and personal information before it is confirmed by the one checking you in. This is then approved and a ‘receipt’ is printed, then scanned to print out a ballot for teh voter. The voter is asked English or Spanish – or a different language if asked- and it is then printed. Once printed it is stamped with the precinct Judge’s special stamped, and gave in to the voter. The voter then completes filling out the ballot and turn it into a machine which processes it and collect the ballot before giving a confirmation that it has been read and processed.
I had previously believed that a voter was simply checked in, handed a ballot, and it was then dropped into a box which was sealed and sent somewhere to be counted.

In reality, I spent the majority of my time waiting for voters to enter the building, talking to the other poll workers – especially a sweet elderly lady who had been doing this for at least 10 years now, making miniature paper cranes out of scrap poll printer paper, and competing with the other check in desk over who can check in the greatest number of people. I met some great people, all adults who dedicated their day off to running this precinct, and learned about their prior experiences for running primary elections or Election Day at other precincts, and heard crazy stories about upset voters or a lunch rush where swarms of voters came in at once. It was a good experience to have, being on the other side of voting a s someone who couldn’t, because I got to see the people who showed up within my community- as well as a number of first time voters including a few of my classmates who are seniors, as well as see the different steps done if someone didn’t have proper registration, or an address issue, or had a provisional or spoiled ballot.

I also want to add that I am currently taking AP United States Government and Politics this year, and I found it particularly interesting as well as exciting to be able to learn about our government and the structure as we go through the election process. That in general provided a greater source of knowledge and insight for me as I went through Election Day and the days after it since I had a better understanding. Now, to the actual election part. As soon as I got home I turned on the TV, or more my dad did while I made sure I completed the majority of my work for school, and sat down to see the ongoing coverage. The key races for the 7 swing states was heavily focused on, as well as in depth reports of each county, senate and house races as per usual, as well as predictions from different news channels prior to AP calling the results. I remember going to bed with the electoral college being at 0 for Harris, 197 for President Trump, and waking up to seeing an increase in ballots yet a still a major gap between the two candidates. On Instagram I went through a series of stories and reposts from people I knew, calling out voters and their own predictions and arguments as they also tune in to the election. However, it’s until the next day where we all came to school where it’s as particularly unsettling.

The greatest divide between our country has further depended following this election. Let me be clear, first of all I can’t vote yet, so anyways asking me who I supported wouldn’t be as important. Furthermore, I personally believe that my own political opinions and ideas aren’t strong nor individualized yet for me to be able to share them. Something I learned, and have always known, is that family is one of the biggest influential factors for children regarding politics. That, alongside schooling, peers, media, and in general exposure as you go on in life that can constantly sway or harden your values. For me, since I’ve only recently started to get more into politics, I have mostly been influenced by my parents, especially by my dad who has very strong political opinions and interest in geopolitics, and for that I tend to see a lot of things from his view, rather than my own. For that, I don’t want to share any of my opinions since anything I said would me be repeating word for word his ideas rather than my own, when I know there could be a strong possibility of me ending up thinking entirely different at one point. For this, why does it matter to someone else what I think or who I support? That first of all is nobody’s business, being a personal matter, and is up to me to decide whether I want to share or not. Furthermore, even if I do keep quiet why does that give you the ight to assume on my behalf? If I choose to say I don’t want to say anything accept it and move on rather than making an assumption that paints me negatively until I share what I really think. For this reason, I have chosen limited responses to people who choose to be vocal about the election and their beliefs, even though I have so much to say. But for this post, I’m going to share an insight of what I think about the election based on my limited knowledge and experience with others who followed this election.

First of all, it felt like President Trump would have won in the end. In my opinion, President Biden was reaching his limit due to his age and in general his public appearances. It felt like he couldn’t adequately perform or appear to the bets of his abilities compared to President Trump, and because of that, couldn’t properly advocate for his policies. Furthermore, with the time period that Kamala Harris took over to run and the time that campaigning officially began, she was on a time crunch. 5 months is not a lot of time to campaign, nor was it to effectively separate herself from president Biden’s name and his actions as president when she was running. Had President Biden conceded earlier, much early on then perhaps she could have had a higher chance, but it still wouldn’t be enough. She would have still been linked to him, and now, after the election, she’s lost any chance of her running again and starting over. Secondly, President Trump would be a better president in the fact that he would have been able to actually get things done and would have achieved far more than Vice President Harris would have. Look at this, Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, during President Biden’s presidency. President Biden is a Democrat, and they advocate for women’s rights and abortion. However this still happened during his presidency. This is because the issue of Roe v. Wade is not in his hands but the Supreme Court’s hands. We have three branches of government, the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, each with their own respective roles and powers to keep each other in check and balanced. With this, major decisions made that involve the constitution and securing our rights are due to the judicial branches, and in this case the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is currently at a Republican majority, meaning that Roe v. Wade was easily overturned because it had a greater majority who do not advocate for abortion. Not only that, with the Senate and House elections, there is a Republican majority. I believe the last time this happened was in 2003-2007 with President George W. Bush having a Republican majority in the Senate, house, and in the Supreme Court due to his nominations. With this, even if VP Harris tried to pass legislation for abortion or women’s rights, or tried to veto something, she would be easily overturned. The Republican Party has an extraordinary amount of power as of right now, which is both dangerous but also, in a way, good as more can be done. We usually talk about the government begging slow, which is true since the framers didn’t ant thee to be to much change or restriction on our rights, making that the process of passing en bills to be difficult with a number of ‘safety’ measures. That is further emphasized by there being a clash between parties, causing a gridlock since there is nothing much that can be achieved if both chambers of Congress don’t agree, or if there is a partisan divide. With this, at least we will see more progress of something happening for our country than not. Not only that, people simply saying we need to vote for VP Harris or that why wouldn’t you when you’re a woman, POC, or whatever is beyond me. Okay, so apart from who she is, what about her policies. Is there anything other than these specific qualities that would make her the right candidate? Anything apart from abortion rights, transgender rights, or gay rights? What about immigration, social security, the ongoing wars, foreign policy? We have so much more at stake than just voting for a president who is a woman and of color. Besides that in what way would she also benefit us. This is not in any way to drag VP Harris, but rather to genuinely ask those people who have only justified voting for VP Harris with this. There is so much more about her campaign than simply that she is a woman and represents those of color. Simply relying on that is not enough. What else has she done for me or will do for me? Roe v. Wade can’t be overturned unless she adds more seats to SCOTUS, and even then she needs to have them reviewed by the Senate, which at this point is a Republican majority. What is the best bet that a Republican majority would so easily approve 4 brand new Democratic-aligning or similar holding beliefs judges if they would vote against the policies study support? Not as likely.

Another thing I want to talk about is how bad the party opposition has begun these past few elections. There’s this constant demonizing of each side when your’e against someone, that it feels unnatural to view them any different. We have been brought up in this constant environment of this party is manipulating you or this party is taking away your rights or just a constant demoralizing of each other. Elections are getting nastier by the second as each of the candidates continue to mudsling each other, and the way that one’s political beliefs can so easily divide us at this point. Let me tell you, one’s political opinions do not entirely define them for who they are. If someone voted Trump that doesn’t mean they support everything he does. They may just vote for him because he’s the figurehead for the Republican patty, and that voter believes in the ideals of the Republicans over the Democrats. They may also support more liberal views while being a Republican, such as abortion or same-sex marriage, or even vice versa. But because we have already painted this awful picture of each side we refuse to to let anyone even breathe if they say their opinions given the chance it is different form your own, and will attack them. Same thing for the Republicans who would often degrade VP Harris for her achievements sayings he slept her way up. Since when have we started doing this to our candidates? At this point it’s more of each side dragging the other in terms fo who tehy are rather than what they stand for, and that’s not a good thing. I have seen constant posts and responses about the election, especially from my friends, saying we’re cooked, or that this is the worst time to be alive, or whatever, when I need to resist the urge of saying, will you guys ever listen? Unless you actually truly understand what is going on, what anything means and understand both sides, why are you already making assumptions. Now I’m not necessarily saying I like President Trump- he’s an awful person for his own behavior and actions over time and some of his policies and reasoning are unfavorable. Not only that, everyone lives in fear that he will implement Project 2025 when he himself has stated and expressed several times that he does not believe nor support that. Yes, he may not have the same views of abortion as we would all like, but he isn’t taking it away altogether. The reason I highlight the Republican Party and President Trump over VP Harris and the Democrats is because of how badly the media portrays Republicans. I remember when I was going in depth for the Republican candidates and their individual beliefs, I was reading so much about the Republican Party beliefs and each of the candidates’s beliefs I found myself conflicted. That coupled with what I know now from APUSH and AP Gov makes me understand what each side walks for and sees for the good of the people. If we start at the very core of each other these party’s beliefs, they aren’t that bad. But over time they have been portrayals so badly and falsely that we see them to be demonic or whatever. When we go back and actually understand American History, the presidents and how our government has changed over time due to different factors, the urgent positions today make so much sense, and then you can actually pick out what they stand for and what you want to stand for. Republicans are more conservative and lean far the rot religious views since President Reagan tied the party with White Christians. because there was so much change going on in the country, with the influx of different immigrants for belief and religion, he advocated fro the common grounds everyone was familiar with. As people became more open to hints against the normal at the time, he created a platform that abided with the ‘old ways’, and garnered support for it that still remains to this day. If we take out that aspect as a whole would the views be different today? Possibly yes. One of the things I do appreciate this year is states putting abortion rights on the ballot and allowing people to vote for that, instead of leaving it up to just the president and government officials.

For people of my generation please stop believing just the media for everything. Stop relying on what your favorite artists or family believe in and please try to create your own opinions. Not everything is as it seems and if you just take a chance to actually read and listen to what is happening, I guarantee you that you will find yourself aligning with a set of ideals you never would have known yourself to. In school, I have had a friend who has posted on Instagram a talked in person for the election results and there have been times where I wanted to tell her so many times to stop. First of all, calling races so early on when there is only a small percentage of votes counted is dangerously, especially since it’s been known for states to quickly turn in different directions when you least expect it. Secondly, based off of seeing election reactions on Twitter as well, is it really necessary to block everyone who disagrees with you? Like, I understand that there are some people who may be incredibly rude or insufferable when it comes to these and you need to, but if someone just has a counter argument you wont even listen to them? I see tweets of people saying that people who voted Trump because of their conservative ideals and not because they like the candidate should be jumped or whatever and I’m like there is no need to go that far for anything?? Can we not respect others’ opinions now? And furthermore, I have seen countless posts and things saying that if you voted for Trump you’re being blocked because I don’t want to be associated with someone who voted against my rights, and has different morals than me in the way that they voted for someone racist, homophobic, hates women, and so and so. Or that blaming everyone who voted against Kamala are homophobic, racist, misogynistic, sexist, stupid, and such, is wrong. That is not the lesson we should take from this election. This same person who posted during election night happens to be a good friend, and came up to me the day after like “Oh, Rovija are you one of Trump’s little dickriders?” I was so caught off guard from first seeing her, and because I had music playing I didn’t even process her question until a few seconds later. First of all, school was not the right place to discuss this nor was it the right time. Secondly, I can’t even vote??? I understand the intention to ask who I supported but the manner in which she asked was rude, inappropriate, and offensive. There is no reason to go around asking that for any reason at all. But also, there was a point she posted about Jill Stein and was asking why was she even running when there is a very clear and reasonable explanation for that. (Although we follow a two party system we do have independent parties with their won bellies that still run and can have candidates)

The whole purpose of this post isn’t to pose myself at a higher level than others. I’m not bragging or trying to convince anyone of one side or the other, but rather hare my whole reactions and opinion of this whole elections and the responses I’ve seen from my own friends and other members of my generation. I am so sick and tired of people believing false this go so easily, not wanting to actually read and understand the truth and what things really mean and instead follow a norm presented by one side all the time. Please read or educate yourselves a little more about certain things before you do anything, because it may not affect you now, but it will definitely affect you later in the future. I don’t want to correct or go against anyone in the sense that I’m saying they’re wrong, but I just want to say that half your questions can be answered if you just read, or you can easily understand the other side if you actually listened. You will be very surprised just how much you already know is either false or entirely different than what you may actually think it is, and I guarantee that will give you a different perspective and idea of politics in general. I myself have so much to learn about, but this is what I’ve concluded from the past few years and classes I’ve taken, being invested in politics and following these candidates. I may be wrong in some aspects and I’m fine with people telling me that, but not having enough evidence or calling me a possible dickrider or that I should be jumped if I have a different belief than you is wrong and I will not stand for it. This goes from both sides. In the results, the fact that the Democratic Party has lost not only the election (both the electoral and popular vote) for president, seats for both Senate and House, and the Supreme Court, doesn’t reflect the voters but instead the party itself. There is so much more I could say, but this is in general my opinion over the election. We can only now wait and see what happens, if we will face another repeat of 2021 again or one thing worse. The fact that we have to have extra security and barricades along government buildings is mortifying. That’s usually seen in countries that have unstable governments. With countless riots and coups, but the fact that it’s gotten to thus point is beyond me. We can only wait and see what these next 4 years will show, but for now, that’s all I can say.

Part 195- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 10

Part 195- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 10

We are now left with 5 main Republican candidates fighting to become the Republican nominee to head against president Biden in 2024. From the third presidential debate that took place in November, Tim Scott dropped out. This finalized the main candidates to Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Chris Christie, and Vivek Ramaswamy, of which four of them showed up for the 4th and final presidential debate that took place a few days ago. They now have to wait until the Iowa Caucus and the final nominee is decided. It is with this, we now will finish with our 10th and final truth: The U.S. Constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history.

The U.S. Constitution

The U.S. Constitution is the “fundamental law of the U.S. federal system of government and a landmark document of the Western world.” The Constitution defines the basic rights of citizens, as well as the jurisdictions of the principal bodies of governments. This also includes the Bill of Rights- the first 10 amendments. This document was written after the failures of the 1st constitution- the Articles of Confederation- and was mainly written to give the central government enough power to act on a national level, but not so much that fundamental rights would be at risk. Overtime, it has slowly been ratified with new amendments to add new freedoms for the people. This includes the abolition of slavery, voting rights, and the salary of members of Congress (the most recent amendment to date).

U.S. Constitution in Politics

The definition of freedom can be a rather vague term. Is one’s definition of freedom the same as another’s? Are there limits to said freedoms that are implicitly stated? Are all freedoms put into the Constitution, and why is it that the last one added took place in 1992? We’ll find out, but first, the candidates.

From Ron DeSantis, I found an article emphasizing his desire to eliminate the First Amendment safeguards that prevent lawsuits from strong arming the press into silence. (Relating to the 9th truth: there are 3 branches of government not 4) Furthermore, DeSantis has attacked the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan, a case that arose out of a “Jim Crow-era official’s attempt to silence civil rights protestors.” This decision established that “some accused of making false claims about a public figure regarding a matter of public concern may not be held liable for defamation, unless the statement was made ‘with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.’” Along with that, earlier this year a U.S. judge had dismissed a lawsuit against the governor after he removed an elected official from office solely due to his stance on abortions and transgender rights. The judge rules that DeSantis had violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Besides this, and Vivek’s Ramaswamy’s claim for this truth, there was little I could find on the matter.

My Perspective

I think it all depends on the inclusion of history. The Constitution has not ALWAYS been a guarantor of freedoms, and in history we see that with slavery and women’s voting rights. 3 new amendments needed to be added at the end of the Civil War to end slavery and establish them as citizens to guarantee them of rights as citizens, despite them having them far longer than these were added. Not only that, there were still loopholes in this as Black Codes and Jim Crow Laws curtailed these rights by an instance amount. It was almost like ‘legalized slavery’ with these new laws, taking away from the purpose of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment that were added. Furthermore, it’s also seen that women were still not allowed to vote nor partake in many of the activities men could, even after freedmen were allowed to. Regardless of white or not, they just weren’t.

I also wanted to add how the Constitution specifically has the 9th Amendment which states that any unlisted rights were still protected and given to the people. Not only that, the entirely of America is literally freedom and in the Constitution is is literally written as “all men are created equal, that there are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” By default doesn’t this include the African Americans as well? Aren’t they also people with unalienable rights? Didn’t they also deserve to have the pursuit of happiness? Now while at that time, slavery was ‘normal’ and wasn’t thought much of, these principles are incredibly contradictory to what actually happened in history. African Americans weren’t even considered as people. They were property who could be captured if run away and sold to different people with little say.

Now if we’re to look at how the U.S. Constitution applies today, let’s talk about the U.S. territories. Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands, etc. The entire American Revolution began with ‘no taxation without representation.’ Americans believed that the King was enforcing these new taxes upon them without any of their say on the matter. Now, isn’t this same thing happening again today, except with the U.S. as the ‘English’? The U.S. territories are taxed without having any too little representation in Congress. Not only that, they do not have any electoral votes to cast for the president or vice president, meaning they can’t really vote in elections. Now what’s the point of that? Hm? I’d think that America, a country that dedicated itself to its unalienable rights that included a say in government, would do the same with its territories but apparently not. At this point, why not just add them to the U.S. if we really want them to be taxed. Let me put it out there, the U.S. made a big deal about the no taxation part, but hardly care if they’re doin the sam thing to their territories. In fact, it’s always been like that. But seeing it now is really stupid.

So do I believe the Constitution is the highest guarantor of rights? No. I mean, if being pro-choice is a right, or even that a girl can do whatever she wants to her body, is a right, then shouldn’t abortions be allowed? Isn’t implementing abortion bans taking away this, especially when such a non-listed right is protected by the 9th Amendment? Think about it.

Part 193- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 9

Part 193- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 9

We’re back with the 9th truth: There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four.

The branches of government

The fourth branch of government is an unofficial term that refers to a belief that the media’s responsibility to inform the people is essential to the healthy functioning of democracy. It is a ‘widely accepted role’ the news media plays in providing citizens with information they can use to check the government power. However, it is said that the media went astray from its primary responsibility and corrupted itself. Let’s see what each of the candidates have to say about this.

Branches of government in politics

The only candidate I was able to find for this truth was Vivek Ramaswamy, but at most, all that was said was that e believed the fourth branch of government to be the administrative state. Ron DeSantis said it was the Department of Education. There was little further information about this from either of them, and any from other candidates.

My Perspective

I don’t now if I could consider the 4th branch of government to be the media. For what I’ve learned, the branches of government were designed to keep checks and balances, and prevent one branch from overpowering another. It also allowed for the people to have a say in the government. However, recently, you could say the media has become very biased. Different news networks will provide favorable news for one party or the other based on affiliation. It might even be very subtly, without you realizing it. Furthermore, media outlets could only provide information they want to provide, to get the reaction and support they want. It’s very influential, and can almost easily change the opinions of anyone in a matter of seconds.

Now, while the media is important in relaying information, it’s come to a point where they’ve taken advantage of it. In the First Amendment, freedom of press is given. It cannot be denied, and based on this, the media is essentially protected. They can, in a way, report what they want. This can lead to the people getting not enough information, and acting in favor of what the media outlet wants. That cannot happen. The media doesn’t have a power in politics. They aren’t making decisions, and often can have far more power than intentionally given.

For me, as a researcher and writer, I find it difficult sometimes, to find what is biased and what is not, and even when I can, I can see how those who may not even realize the bias exists, can get easily swayed. I agree, there aren’t four branches of government. The media isn’t “keeping” the government in check. I mean, yes it gives people information about updated events, but it shouldn’t have a greater power than that in the government. When people receive their information, they are the ones who should then make their decisions of what they want. They shouldn’t be influenced by a middle way that wants something that benefits them. It’s wrong. hence, there should be four branches not three.

Part 192- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 8

Part 192- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 8

Hello! Today we start with the next truth: The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind.

The Nuclear Family

Let’s start by defining what exactly a Nuclear Family is. The Nuclear Family, is essentially, a group of people who are united by ties of partnership and parenthood and consisting of a pair of adults and their socially recognized children. It’s the essential idea of a family, when you first think about one, with parents and children in a one home residence. It’s heavily contrasted to a single-parent family, a larger extended family, or a family with more than two parents. Its primary focus is on a married couple, and emphasizes the advantages of a better financial stability, strong support systems for children, and consistency in raising children from established daily routines. Let’s see what each of the candidates have to say about it then.

Nuclear Families in Politics

Ron DeSantis has shown major support for this issue, working toward emphasizing the importance of fatherhood and the nuclear family, saying “there are those who diminish the importance of fatherhood and the nuclear family-we will not let that happen in our state.” He has taken a number of actions towards fulfilling this, such as securing nearly $70 million in funding to address the fatherlessness crisis in Florida. The usage of this money is dedicated to :educational programs, to increase mentorship opportunities for families, and to encourage responsible and involved fathers.” DeSantis has also “shown his commitment to supporting foster families by increasing monthly payments to those who serve as caregivers to foster children, increasing monthly support to cover childcare for foster children, and expanding postsecondary education opportunities for foster children.”

The only other, current contending candidate, who has spoken out about nuclear families is none other than Vivek Ramaswamy himself. Of course, he believes that the nuclear family is the strongest firm of governance known to mankind. Ramaswamy has pointed to marriage and family as a key driver of success in life, and often credits the groundwork of his own success due to two factors: being raised in a two-parent family and getting a good education. He has said, “I did have the ultimate privilege of two parents in the house with a focus on educational achievement, and I want every kid to enjoy that.” He believes that strong and stable families give men, women, and children an incomparable advantage when it comes to doing well in school, flourishing in life, and achieving the American dream. How goal is for policymakers to make it easier for children from lower-income families to access this privilege.

My Perspective

I feel as though, it’s rather stereotypical for people to always assume a family is two parents. It’s always been the common idea of a family, but with a changing society and with new factors, that can change just as easily. What exactly defines a family? A group of two or more persons related by brith, marriage, or adoption who live together? Those who live together as a unit? The descendants of a common ancestor? All of these are right answers, but we’re focused on only one of them- a typical two parent family with children.

Families are all unique. Not every two parent family will be amazing, nor will every single parent family be difficult. Although the chances of this happening is not very common, you cannot necessarily always assume it’ll be bad. Often, those who struggle have more motivation to work harder and get out of that setting they’re put in. They’re wanting to succeed, and will push themselves to work hard to prevent themselves from struggling. And, yes, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. Not every two-parent family is perfect. You have changes of domestic abuse or violence, divorce, or just any other factor which can suddenly show up. That often creates a more negative effect on the family than in a single-parent household.

I can see why Vivek Ramaswamy or Ron DeSantis would want to emphasize the importance of nuclear families. They want to provide a better future and successful future for kids of the current generations and future generations. They want to help these kids be born and live in a stable, good environment where they can succeed and go on to do greater things. They want to take away the limitations one could get from lack of a parent so that they aren’t held back from other kids. It’s a fair ground for everyone to help everyone thrive. And I agree. I too have grown up in a two-parent family and have a good education, and I understand how much of a privilege that is compared to some other kids in my grade level. But also, we need to know, that we’re all still very different. Even if every child has a two-parent home and a good education and such, it’s still up to other factors that can impact this path. It’s not always going to be perfect, and I can see that they also realize that too. But in order to just slightly change that. In an effort to make the conditions slightly easier, and create an even footing for all children, they’re focusing on the importance of a nuclear family. And so, maybe the nuclear family is the greatest form of goevrnance to mankind.

Part 189- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 5

Part 189- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 5

Today we begin with the 4th truth: Reverse racism is racism. Let’s get into it!

Reverse Racism

Reverse racism is defined as “situations where white people believe they negatively stereotyped or discriminated against because of their whiteness-or treated less favorably than people of color. ” More simply put, white people are saying people are being racist and prejudiced towards them, and they don’t like it.

Now, Merriam-Webster defines Britannica as “the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another.” So, technically, this does fall into the category of racism. However, there are several factors that could also disprove this. But first, as always, let’s see what our candidates have to say regarding this.

Reverse Racism and Politics

Forget reverse racism even, let’s talk about racism in general. However, I have to note, I found very title information regarding this topic. The most I’ve found is from Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, and Vivek Ramaswamy, so that’s the most we’ll have to work with for today.

These three candidates are all people of color. Vivek Ramaswamy and Nikki Haley are both South Asian- Indians more specifically- and Tim Scott is African-American. All three of them have been discussing their identities along this campaign, “trying to appeal to a voting base that is less diverse than the country as a whole.” Discussions of race and immigration are almost unavoidable, especially when it comes to hem. How can your future president or future presidential candidate make the best decisions on race and immigration in your favor when the candidates themselves have come from immigration or are of a different race? The concern is very understandable. But let’s see what they have to say.

Tim Scott believes that progress in America is palpable and can be measured in generations. He says that “family stories of discrimination and racism are relics of the past and do not reflect a form of prejudice still embedded in American society.” Nikki Haley falls along similar lines.

Vivek Ramaswamy believes himself to be a ‘non-white nationalist.’ He, unlike the others, actually agrees that America is hypocritical. But he also believes that “Americans must learn to recalibrate and get ‘comfortable with that discomfort, so we can be stronger on the other side of it.’”

My Perspective

I have some semi-strong opinions on this matter. It’s primarily due to the fact that I’m a ‘minority’ and that my lineage and people have had to suffer 89 years of colonization from the British where they were left stripped and, devoid of everything.

In America, everyone is diverse, and I think that’s one of the most beautiful things about this country. You get such an amazing assortment of people with different backgrounds, cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and ideals to just bring a new perspective into life. I love interacting with my friends, many of which have a different race and culture than mine, and getting to talk to them about their favorite traditions, foods, and activities in general. But more importantly, I love how despite all these differences with us, we all have the same similarities. I love how I get to enjoy talking about Korean boy bands with my friends who are Columbian and Vietnamese, literature and fantasy with my Filipino and African-American friends, Orchestra with Asians and Latinas and Caucasians, and just so much more. The way we can easily connect and laugh and push each other to work harder or to go the brinks of insanity and hysteria (in a good way) is amazing, and I really cherish that. But I can’t ignore the fact that most of us are still seen as a minority to others.

We are first judged based on our appearance rather than personality. One look at my skin color can immediately set a prior bias or perception in someone’s mind, causing them to act differently towards me compared to others. And it’s uncomfortable. It’s not necessarily racism, but more of the tendency to change one’s behavior towards me based on my race. It’s the way they react towards me. I haven’t necessarily experienced the degrees to which one could call it racism, but given where I am right now, I have experienced some prejudice or just behavioral change towards me based on race. This doesn’t just apply to me, but others as well. I can see people act differently to other P.O.C’s as well, and I can see the frustration they also get when they experience things like this as well.

Now about reverse racism. Technically, it is also racism. Any kind of systemic oppression towards a racial group is racism. However, reverse racism isn’t based on systemic oppression. It’s based on prejudice and discrimination. This is something rooted from systemic racism and racial hierarchies where there are injustices and power imbalances. Years and years of ingrained ideals and thinking passed down and present have caused for there to be discrimination and negative appeals towards people of color. There’s a lack of diverse representation in political, social, and economic influences due to this. (While it’s different today, it’s more of a recent product that’s slowly growing.) Given this, it’s always been white people at the top of these hierarchies. Colonization by the Europeans and slavery have made this evident.

I find it laughable how white people can call derogatory names with a reference to their whiteness as racist, when they’ve been doing that for years and years with no care to how the other felt. They willingly and knowingly stepped over them, believing their race was most superior, and when they experiences the bare minimum of these insults they feel threatened and even a victim. It’s really unbelievable. The hypocrisy in this is unbelievable.

While racism towards any race, including white people, is wrong and needs to be stopped immediately, the fact that derogatory names towards white people is called discrimination is false. I mean, yeah it’s wrong to do so, but just get your complaint right, you’re not discriminated against.

We’ll pick up at part 6 next week on the next topic: An open border is no border.

Part 188- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election Part 4

Part 188- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election Part 4

Welcome back to the amazing 10 truths series where today we start with point 3: Human flourishing requires fossil fuels

Fossil Fuels and the Environment

With the growth of our species we’ve advanced further and further, discovering different forms to produce energy such as solar, wind, hydraulic, nuclear, and so much more. But the more we research this, we also learn that our planet is not as it previously was. Climate change, as we now it, has become heavily debated. Since the increasing usage of fossil fuels, the increase of climate change has both concerned and unbothered many. So the question remains, should we continue using fossil fuels, or switch to an alternative?

Fossil Fuels in Politics

The opinions of fossil fuels are once again very clearly divided between the two parties. The Republican candidates being in favor of the need for fossil fuels, and the Democratic Party focusing more on the need for climate change and switching to other sources of energy. But let’s go deeper into each of the candidates’ actions regarding this certain field.

Ron DeSantis has called for the withdrawal of the U.S. from “international climate commitments like the Paris Accords that aim to achieve ‘net-zero’ greenhouse gas emissions.” He has also criticized power grid failures, and said that he would like to prioritize more reliable energy sources from fossil fuels such as natural gas and coal, as well as nuclear power and hydropower. He would also repeal federal tax credits and subsidies for electric vehicles and their supporting infrastructure, as well as focus on reducing “federal regulations to best domestics production of oil and gas with the goal of cutting the price of gas to $2 per gallon in 2025.”

Vivek Ramaswamy has called for the “increased domestic drilling and fracking for fossil fuels like oil and natural gas, as well as burning coal to produce reliable energy.” He also advocated for the U.S. to ‘abandon the climate cult’ and pledged to reverse President Biden’s green energy policies.

Nikki Haley said she wanted to “empower domestic energy producers by expanding oil and gas production and reining in the regulatory bureaucracy that stands in the way.” She too has called for the elimination of President Biden’s green energy policies, and would look to eliminate the federal gas tax to ease burdens on consumers.

Former Vice President Mike Pence has called for “setting a goal of overtaking China s teh world’s leading energy producer by reducing burdensome regulations and eliminating preferences for certain types fo energy through a source-neutral approach.” He too would immediately remove President Biden’s green energy policies, and would look to expand drilling on federal land and cut restrictions on liquified natural gas infrastructure and expanding pipeline capacity.

Tim Scott said he would accelerate federal permitting processes that “regulate the development of oil and natural gas resources” and would also “set a goal of doubling nuclear energy production within a decade.”

Chris Christie has called for an energy policy- called the ‘all-of-the-above strategy’- that includes a mix of fossil fuels nuclear power, and renewables. He has also called for an increased domestic production of oil and gas, which he views as a :necessary component of the U.S.energy portfolio until nuclear energy output is increased and renewable sources like solar and wind are more developed.” Unlike the other candidates, however, he has said that he would be open towards steps aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by carbon capture. He has also indicated that he would push China to also curb its emissions since only U.S. action to do so wouldn’t be as impactful.

Now what are these green energy policies everyone is fighting to get rid of?

The Biden-Harris Administration launched several initiative and billion dollar plans to increase the widespread use of clean and renewable energy. Some examples of such are:

  • $2.5 billion in funding to bring EV charging and alternative-fuel infrastructure to communities, which particular focus on underserved and overburdened communities, and along alternative fuel corridors
  • $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund, which will produce grants to up to three national clean financing institutions, enabling them to partner with states and the private sector to provide affordable financing for tens fo thousands of clean technology projects nationwide
  • $6 billion Clean Communities Investment Accelerator which provides grants for up to 7 nonprofits what will work with other groups to provide access to investments needed to deploy clean technology projects

Apart from that, President Biden has also boosted fossil fuels through allowing an Alaska ‘carbon bomb’, massive drilling lease sales in the Gulf, supporting across departments for oil and gas exports, and supporting for a controversial pipeline.

My Perspective

In schools, I’ve always been taught about the impacts of fossil fuels on our environment rather than why they were first used. It was covered in history classes when we got to the Industrial Revolution, but we never got current perspectives and impacts for the other parts of the world. There were passages, questions, and articles that talked about wind energy, solar energy, fossil fuels and ozone layers, and things regarding changes and alternatives to current and past practices. It was science, and knowledge incremental to our learning. We needed to know what was going on about the environment around us. What protected us from harmful ultraviolet radiation, and what’s causing for the rising water levels.

For me personally, I remember having a discussion on greenhouse gases fossil fuels with my dad and being so frustrated about why he didn’t agree with me. I had always had this mindset that fossil fuels were bad for the environment and we needed to change that to protect our planet. But with the research and preparation gone into this post, as well as an increase in the number and types of history/social studies classes I’ve taken since then, I’ve grown to have an altering opinion on fossil fuels.

Fossil Future, by Alex Epstein has been circulating around the articles I’ve read, highlighting some new insights I’ve never considered before.

Firstly, fossil fuels have been a core foundation in the growth of our nation as well as for many other countries around the world. We created a growing, thriving economy from the usage of fossil fuels, allowing us to create and advance to heights and levels we had never been able to even imagine much before. Things became efficient, easier, less time consuming, and more open to focus and develop other aspects. Today, now that we’ve grown and also have new findings on our environments and the impact of these fossil fuels, we’ve started to call for the reduced usage of them.

Stage 4 and 5 countries- pulling out my knowledge of AP Human Geography here-that have developed much before, begin to criticize Stage 2 and 3 countries who are relying on fossil fuels to develop today, saying they cause the pollution that damages our environment. They say this while being the ones who contributed to much of the damage at the beginning. It becomes evident from these arguments, that fossil fuels is what truly helped us develop and flourish as a species. We, as America, got to where we are now from our dependence on Fossil Fuels, and now developing countries are beginning to do the same. So yes, it is necessary.

Is it the best option though? No. As much as we don’t want to face it, our planet is dying. Human impact has left a negative mark on this planet. We see it with plastic and waste filled waters, hazy and dust colored skies where the sun is barely visible, oil spills blooming in the oceans, a reduction in animal populations, and so much more. We’ve now begun to realize these impact, hence the growing need and concern by activists to reverse and fix these actions. Fossil fuels, as beneficial they are, have been damaging and most harmful to our planet.

We should be looking towards alternative resources using water, wind, or even biofuel instead of solely depending on fossil fuels. I’m not necessarily considering the cut and complete removal of fossil fuels, but rather the development of alternative renewable resources that can support us as efficiently, or even more, as fossil fuels can. What would happen when we no longer have coal, oil, or gas to power our countries? What should we do then, when the world is in a state of panic? We need to at least begin the development of these renewable resources that can be used in the chance we run out. Fossil fuels should be used to progress development, but we also need to consider cutting down these practices to also use renewable resources.

See you for the fourth point: Reverse Racism is racism.

Part 187- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 3

Part 187- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 3

Today we start strong with Vivek Ramaswamy’s second truth: There are two genders.

Identity and Gender

Today’s world is changing. There are new ideas, concepts, feelings, and environments that we wouldn’t have even imagined of years ago. One of the ideas we’ve seen more around us is the creation of identity and categorization of gender.

The LGBTQIA+ community, to be more specific, has grown to become even more diverse within the past years. Due to this, there has been a rise of demands for recognition of the different pronouns, genders, and identities people have chosen for themselves. A recent example is the addition of Two-spirit to the acronym, changing it to 2SLGBTQIA+. These new changes and expansions have been making many politicians a bit antsy about what to do.

2 Genders in Politics

The most well-known actions in politics taken against the queer community has to be the ones by Ron DeSantis in Florida. From the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, to the “Anti-Trans Bathroom” Bill, and so many more, he’s been quite notorious for fighting the 2SLGBTQIA+ community head on. I’d say this relates quite strongly to religion in politics. In my last post, I talked about Governor DeSantis’s strong religious beliefs and how that can be seen in his political actions. He’s very proud of his Catholic beliefs and Christ-centered household. Some of these beliefs include the demonization of same-sex couples or those who identify as a different gender than that assigned at birth.

Nikki Haley is quite similar, showing strong support for the “Don’t Say Gay’ Bill, and going as far as taking restrictive measures towards trans kids participating in sports. She believes that the idea of one using pronouns different than assigned gender at birth, or those of opposite gender playing on a sports team “weakens the country.” Vivek Ramaswamy has also verbally shown his opinions towards trans people, refusing to believe they exist, and proactively spreading false, dangerous narratives about 2SLGBTQIA+ people. Several of the other GOP potential candidates- such as Mike Pence, Asa Hutchinson, and Tim Scott- have expressed similar views by signing anti-LGBTQ+ bills, supporting conversion therapy, introducing federal legislature that defunds schools protecting trans children, and a number of other actions.

The Democratic Party candidates have been more open towards the community.The Biden presidency has “documented more than 200 policies, statements, and appointments to include and protect LGBTQ people” their first two years. Many other democrats have voiced their support and determination to stand with the LGBTQ+ community for equality and rights. I can see how this relates to the secular vs more religious-affiliated viewpoint of the two parties.

My Perspective

I support 2SLGBTQIA+. Some of my friends are queer, and I love how that makes all of us unique and have a different personality and opinion on things. I think the whole 2SLGBTQIA+ group is fascinating and beautiful really. I love to see how queer people express that side of themselves and how happy they are when they show who they truly are. It really shows how they’ve found who they are. A lot of times that could mean coming out as gay, trans, non-binary, gender-fluid, etc. 

This world is constantly changing. It’s complex and confusing, and we often lose sight of who we are and what our identity as a person is. I love seeing these people on Instagram or online and in real-life and how they’ve found who they are. I really don’t care if you’re this or that. It’s not my business to decide if it’s right or wrong. What I really prefer is for you to feel happy and free. Where you can live as who you are and not be forced to follow a norm and standard defined by others. Sure, at birth we are given two genders; male and female. But overtime, we grow to understand ourselves more than others. We understand the world and we interpret things differently. Certain things feel right to us more than others, and gender is often one of them.

But, there are also times where this can become too overwhelming.With the constant fight for equality and recognition of 2SLGBTQIA+ identities- such as pronouns- we’re now facing the need to ask what pronouns someone goes by. That I’m fine with. I want to make sure I’m addressing someone the way they want to be addressed or referred to as and don’t want to make them uncomfortable. But there come times where I feel unsure about what pronouns they go by based on name or features. I don’t want to come off as rude by assuming pronouns or gender, but I also don’t want to be seen as signaling someone out simply for being different if I ask them for their pronouns and not anyone else.

Apart from that I wanted to bring up the newest addition to the 2SLGBTQIA+ acronym; the 2S. The 2S was added for Two-Spirit, which in my opinion, does not fall under the LGBTQIA+ community. Two-Spirit is “a term used within some Indigenous communities, encompassing cultural, spiritual, sexual and gender identity.” The term reflects “complex Indigenous understandings of gender roles, spirituality, and the long history of sexual and gender diversity in Indigenous cultures.” It refers to people having a masculine and feminine spirit. To me, this feels more culturally associated than identity. I’m not saying it’s not, but it relates more heavily to the type of work a native does- as there are often specialized work roles within native communities- and social roles and clothing. Although it falls under someone’s identity, this more strongly encompasses how a person acts within the community and the roles they take on based on gender, rather than merely how they want to be recognized in society. It’s something ingrained within their cultural traditions- societal roles and participation within the community- whilst many of the other LGBTQIA+ identities don’t.

Otherwise, I feel that someone’s identity should be based on what makes them the most comfortable. They should feel safe, and free to express how they want to regardless of common social norms and customs. We shouldn’t try and define someone else’s identity based on our beliefs or religion. America is the land of the free, and if we don’t hav the freedom to express who we are and who we want to be, then is it truly America?

That was my take on the second truth, there are 2 genders, and I look forward to seeing you in the next one!

Part 186- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 2

Part 186- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 2

Picking up from last week, this is part 2 of the 2024 election series. Last post I discussed a brief structure of this series, a table of the potential Republican candidates with aIl of their beliefs, as well as listed Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 point plan. This is the first of the 10-post section talking about each of the points in detail and analysis from my perspective.

Just as a recap, here are the 10 points I am talking about.

10 Truths as per Vivek Ramaswamy: 

  1. God is real
  2. There are two genders
  3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels
  4. Reverse racism is racism
  5. An open border is no border
  6. Parents determine the education of their children
  7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind
  8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty
  9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four
  10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history

The reason I chose to integrate Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 point plan is mainly because he’s the only candidate so far to have made his beliefs clear. He’s set up a very straightforward list of values he abides by, which he uses, and I want to use this as the basis of which I compare the potential candidates.

So, without further ado, let us begin with the first point.

Religion in Politics

Religion has had a tremendous influence over politics in the recent years. Abortion bans, laws against LGBTQ rights, religious lessons in school, it’s been heavily debated everywhere. But more specifically, when I mean religion in the United States, I mean Christianity.

America has been a country created and built fro freedom. Our first colonists, ‘settlers’, came for religious persecution. To escape the Church of England that opposed their different religious views. It’s essentially why Freedom of Religion is part of the First Amendment. But times have now changed. Back then there was one main religion with different branches that had different takes on it. That religion is Christianity. There were Protestants, Catholics, Quakers, Lutherans, Baptists, and so much more. In a way, they all had most of the same values, making some of the current topics we face in politics to be unthought of back then.

But as time passes by, America has slowly become a melting pot. You don’t see just one religion or multiple branches of that one religion, but instead multiple. Religions from all around the world, with each of their own unique tradition can be seen everywhere in America. Given this, we should feel the need to take all religions in account the best we can rather than just one. Yet, that doesn’t happen. Why is that so?

The Republican Party is heavily supported with evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics, while the Democratic Party tends to have liberal Protestants, Catholics, and secular voters in support. This ratio of supporters is what tends to make one party more bent on supporting certain decisions than other. But is that RIGHT? What effect can we see from this in today’s political decisions?

For me, I don’t think it’s right. Like I mentioned, America is influenced by religious freedom. To practice one’s own religion without fear or punishment. We shouldn’t be a country based on religion to make our decisions. One might bring up that countries that have religious governments in retaliation. True, but to compare that to America would be wrong. India, as an example, is a country where Buddhism and Hinduism originated from. It’s a cultural and religious hearth, where these values are integrated. America on the other hand is much different. We have a mix of religions and cultures that different people follow and live by everyday. While certain things are accepted in some religions it isn’t in others.

When politicians start making Abortion bans because their religion prohibits it, it’s almost like they’re forcing their religions on others. They expect others to follow a rule they follow in their religion, even when we all believe in different things. You shouldn’t bring religion and politics into play together, especially when we all have different ideas on religion. In a way, it takes away from freedom of religion. I mean, if your religion doesn’t allow abortions then that’s absolutely fine. But why should you stop me from getting one if I need it, when I am allowed to do so by my religion? The two shouldn’t correlate.

Candidates and Religion

I want to point out a very clever thing Vivek Ramaswamy did when describing his first truth. He said ‘God is real’. That’s it. It doesn’t necessarily say WHICH God he talks about. We would think he’s Christian but in reality he’s actually a Hindu. He proudly supports this, even while quoting parts of the Bible during tours. And really, that’s the greatness of it I guess. It doesn’t specify to which God is real, but simply that God is real. It aligns with all religions. Apart from that, he also states that we would hope for people to not fear making a leap to support him despite being of a different religion. Vivek Ramaswamy talks about how he’s a person of faith, similar to evangelical Christians. He’s connecting the two to show how difference in religion plays no part in his willingness to represent them.

Nikki Haley is a little different. Unlike Vivek Ramaswamy, she converted to Christianity. A lot of people constantly asked her about her religion and background when she identified as her parents’ Sikh religion as well as her husband’s Methodist faith. It got to a point where people understood she was talking about God, but more specifically which God. She finally addressed that she was Christian, as in order to gain the support needed to become South Carolina’s governor, they had to make sure it meant believing and praying to their Christian God. If she was was born into a Sikh family but converted to her husband’s religion, then does she truly believe in Christianity or did she do so for political gain? Moreover, if she believes that God is real then why would she feel the need to convert? She’s doesn’t necessarily use religion to advocate her political views, such as on abortion. She said she was “unapologetically pro-life” but will not “judge anyone who is pro-choice”.

Ron DeSantis is a different story. Ron DeSantis very proudly asserts his Christ-centered household and his Catholic beliefs. One of the things he advocates most for is religious education in school. His kids go to a school where they are taught stories from the Bible, and he says he and his wife are grateful for it, as well as when “{their} our kids are coming back from preschool or kindergarten and talking about David and Goliath.” He uses his religious views to support his actions including the attack on Disney, and religious education in schools. He has also said that “the country is ready for a spiritual revival to get back to what he believes are its founding principles.” However, our Founding Fathers didn’t base our founding principles on Christianity but rather on unalienable rights.

With Democrats, they tend to be more secular when it comes to religion. They don’t align with one religion and tend to act independently from that. President Biden, who is Roman Catholic similar to Governor DeSantis, however he doesn’t necessarily publicize it that much. Although it’s known he’s Catholic, he doesn’t talk much about his beliefs compared to others. He also doesn’t combine this with his political decisions.

(These are the most I’ve found on candidates based on religious values)

My Perspective

I respect all religions. It really doesn’t matter to me that much what you believe in, unless it results in trying to force those beliefs on someone else. That’s exactly what can be seen with the Republican Party from time to time.

I’m assuming that’s mostly what makes people so biased against Republicans at first thought. We tend to think about the actions that have come from beliefs in certain religions compared to some of the other values they have. Now, looking at this with a deeper analysis, I think I might understand why Republicans tend to be more Christian aligned. In the past, most Americans were white Christians who mostly followed the same God- with varying beliefs based on religion type. But as America has slowly become less white, less Christian, people are trying to hold onto their beliefs the best they can. Back when their religious beliefs and values were always present in the community and in people around them, there wasn’t much worry. But with the varying ideas, beliefs, cultures, and religions that have built and created the diverse community America is today, it’s not as easy. (Most) Republicans are trying to adhere with the Christian nationalism, making it more supported by evangelical Christians.

But these fears also lead to a lot of anti-Black, anti-immigrant, antisemitism views. (To name a few) It also leads to the need to bring back old practices in the past and increase the practice and teachings of Christianity to children in settings other than just at home. They want to keep the same values they’ve known stable, and consistent and don’t like the change with opposing views. There becomes a need for religious education ins chooses, Abortion bans, anti-woke bills, and LGBTQ freedom restrictions. It’s because of this that people- a lot of kids in my generation I’m mainly referring to- tend to view the Republican Party negatively. And, I’m not saying the Republican Party are necessarily right in these aspects. I strongly disagree with them on these topics, but after doing more research on them through this series, I’ve come to find myself understanding a lot of their views. Republicans constantly bring religion into politics, forcing those with different religions to abide and follow rules they don’t have to in their own religion.

In a generation where things are increasingly confusing, the only thing we all want to do is to find our own identity. We want to truly find who we are, make our own decisions and choices, and not to be coerced into something by others. I know, we’re bound to fail at that. We’ll make mistakes and do stupid things that we think are right, thinking we know better. But really that’s how we’ll grow. It’s how we’ll find what we want to do, how we want to work and be the person we want to be. But that ability is often taken away. A lot of time we’re falling into step as our parents. We repeat the same words they said at home in school, or growing up to believe the same things our parents our without a second thought. While that may be fine since we don’t know much at this time, it also prevents us from thinking for ourselves. To actually come up with our own ideas and opinions rather than regurgitating whatever someone else said because it sounded impressive and even right. But for how long would we keep doing this?

I feel that we should let people find who they are and build their own identity than trying to force things on one another. In certain circumstances, it is necessary to guide others, but we shouldn’t force a right or wrong based on one standard. Your right could be my wrong and vice versa. Maybe we’re both wrong or even both right. Regardless, it shouldn’t get to a point where we force that on another person. Especially religious beliefs.

This concludes the first truth of Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 truths. See you next week for the second truth; There are 2 genders.

Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

Part 185- Teenager’s Guide to the 2024 Election: Part 1

It’s that time again; U.S. presidential elections. This is the second edition to my election series which I previously started for the last election in 2020. The overall framework of this series is to use Vivek Ramaswamy’s 10 truths. Vivek Ramaswamy has very openly and strongly expressed his beliefs in 10 simple bullet points, and I’ll be using these to analyze each candidate’s values. (This goes for both parties)

10 Truths as per Vivek Ramaswamy:

  1. God is real
  2. There are two genders
  3. Human flourishing requires fossil fuels
  4. Reverse racism is racism
  5. An open border is no border
  6. Parents determine the education of their children
  7. The nuclear family is the greatest form of governance known to mankind
  8. Capitalism lifts people up from poverty
  9. There are three branches of the U.S. government, not four
  10. The U.S. constitution is the strongest guarantor of freedoms in history

These points will be used to categorize as well as compare each candidate and each of their views on each of these points, allowing for me- as well as you- to decide which candidate you’d most likely want to support based on similar aligning views. Following the analysis of each point, I’m going to discuss the effect these beliefs play in politics as well as in every day life. This part will be discussed from my point of view, as a teenager.

The candidates will be formatted into a table at the end with their position on each of these 10 truths, as shown below. Although the table below consists of only Republican potential candidates, I’ll be discussing both Democratic and Republican candidates the best I can.

CandidatesAbortionEconomyForeign PolicyImmigrationOther
Donald TrumpPro-lifeAmerica first; China as a business partner, not political peerAmerica first; long term benefits for American citizensAgainst illegal immigration, US-Mexico wallPro-guns (2nd Amendment)
Ron DeSantisSupported bills restricting access to abortion, stopped short of saying he would support a federal banCut individual taxes, slash government spending, “American energy independence” and rollback of electric vehiclesOpposes additional US involvement in Ukraine, reduce economic ties with “communist China”, the US would no longer “kowtow to Wall Street”Eliminate the visa lottery and limit “unskilled immigration”Frequently “touted his opposition to gender-affirming care for trans people and other public health measures such as mask mandates”
Vivek RamaswamyPro-life, would not back a national abortion banUS should abandon its climate goals to drive down energy costs and boost its GDP, in favor of some corporate and individual tax cutsCriticized US aid to Ukraine, saying it is strengthening Russia’s alliance with Chinadeport “universally” and end birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants (who would then be required to apply to become a citizen)
Tim ScottPro-life, would support a national 15-week banTax cuts and stronger economic competition with China. Championed legislation establishing “opportunity zones” which are meant to increase economic development in low-income areas by incentivizing private investmentSupports continued US aid to Ukraine, says Biden has not done enough. “Soft on China”In favor of a wall along US southern border to curb illegal migration and drug trafficking
Nikki HaleyPro-life, federal abortion ban “unrealistic”Opposes raising national debt limit, “veto spending bills that don’t put America on track to reach pre-pandemic spending”Labeled Chinese Communist party an “enemy”, criticized Trump for trying to befriend Chinese presidentVowed to tighten security at US-Mexico border, add 25,000 patrol agents, require companies to verify employees’ status online.
Chris ChristieNot support federal abortion banTargeted “excessive government spending” as the reason for inflation and floated cuts to social security, including MedicareTough on China-and-Russia, support for continued US aid to Ukraine
Mike PencePro-life, in favor of six-week abortion banBoosting US economy, employment high and inflation low (focus solely on reducing inflation), advocated for cutting social security benefitsAdvocated for continued US aid to UkraineVowed to finish the border wall
Doug BurgumPro-life, not support a national banPrioritize growing the country’s tech and energy sectorsWinning “Cold War with China” is importantSupports stricter restrictions of migration. Says Biden “hasn’t done enough to secure the US-southern border”
Asa HutchinsonPro-life, support a national banFloated extreme measures to balance the federal budget and reduce debt including cutting federal non-military workforce by 10%Would not cut economic ties with China, advocated for more action to counter China’s threat against Taiwan,Supports harsh restrictions on immigration
Organized from The Guardian

So let’s get into our ACTUAL first post of this series with the first truth; God is Real.