The Implications of the Congressional Override of President Obama's Veto

New York Times Article

Summary:
For the first time during his two terms in office, Congress has overridden a veto made by President Obama against a bill that would allow families of victims of the 9/11 attacks to sue the Saudi Arabian Government.  Although it has been stated by the 9/11 Commission that the government had no involvement in the tragic events, the royal family is in question for having funded the Al Qaeda organization that orchestrated the attacks.  The unanimous vote to override the presidential veto allows the bill to pass into law, effectively amending a 1976 law that grants foreign national governments immunity from lawsuits in US federal courts.  This event poses a threat to the US government because it has set the precedent for foreign citizens to sue the US government under similar circumstances.  Families of those killed by American soldiers in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other countries may attempt to sue American soldiers for killing their family members in their respective countries.  All these potential threats beg the question: Was the override a mistake?

Questions:
What could be some domestic consequences of the Congressional Override?
How might the Saudi Arabian Royal Family have contributed to the events of 9/11?
To what extent does this bill set a "dangerous precedent"?
To what extent does this bill represent a setback for the Obama Administration?

New Identity Politics Based on Race and Class

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/02/opinion/identity-politics-run-amok.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&action=click&contentCollection=opinion&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection&_r=0
Article Summary:
David Brooks asserts that Identity Politics are dominating this year's election.  The election is divided along cruel identity lines- race and class. As a newcomer to politics, Trump epitomizes this style of campaigning. His campaign is defined by two motifs: that the American gov't is in the grips of a rich oligarchy (elitism) that distorts everything for its benefit; that the American people are besieged by foreigners, who take their jobs and threaten their lives. Trump takes these ideas and manipulates them to make it seem as if the world will end if the U.S. does not restrict immigration or reduce the influence of the rich.

Identity politics distorts politics in two ways: it cleanly divides the world into opposing forces of light and darkness. Are you a worker or an elite? Are you an American or a foreigner? Trump tries to reduce the election to these two questions which displays the intellectual laziness of many white Trump supporters because they are influenced by him and help spread his ideology.

Brooks claims that,"Identity politics, as practiced by Trump, but also by others on the left and the right, distracts from the reality that we are one nation. It corrodes the sense of solidarity. It breeds suspicion, cynicism and distrust. Human beings are too complicated to be defined by skin color, income or citizenship status. Those who try to reduce politics to these identities do real violence to national life."

Questions to this consider: 
1. How is Trump experiencing so much success with this form of politics? 
2. Is this election about the lesser of the two evils-does Hillary's controversial past drastically help Trump and his constituency? 
3. Are Americans sick of the Clintons and patronage (Democrats constantly promoting Clinton and we also had two bushes and now we may have two Clintons)? 
4. Do Americans like Trump because he can be viewed as entertaining and inspirational while Hillary is often portrayed as old and boring and more importantly as a liar? 
5. Are Americans able to forgive Trump's statements regarding women and Mexicans that can be viewed as misogynistic and racist because they do not want a liar as president of the U.S.? 
6. Does Trump have more values in common with the average American than Hillary because he can be viewed as honest and someone who speaks his mind? Although he may be factually incorrect, Trump is able to simplify issues, say what most people have been afraid to say; people are also sick and tired of our political establishment system.

Please comment on Hillary v. Donald. Happy debating on Monday Night!

Thanks.

Democrats advice: "Let Trump screw up". Why this is bad advice (from a Democrat's perspective)

As a self proclaimed Democrat, I often reflect on the 2016 presidential election race and find myself asking: How did a misogynistic, racist, and ultimately unappealing candidate- I'm talking about none other than Donald Trump- make it this far in the race? A 2000 episode of the Simpson's- set in an America that had gone insane- predicted it correctly, that Donald Trump would not only run but that he would be very, very close to the presidency.

I disagree with Trump's beliefs about immigration and gender, amongst a breadth of other topics. But I must admit, that Donald Trump is a powerful speaker- he is loud, arrogant, and boastful, and that resonates with people. Trump preys off the fear of those who feel displaced by an increasingly diverse, multicultural society. He, in essence, speaks loudly for those who cannot speak for themselves. In our first period class, we even discussed how some believed that Trump employs methods similar to a hypnotist.

Recently, Democrats were reported to have given Hilary Clinton some satirical advice: "Let Trump Screw up." I pray that she does not take this advice. We have given Trump months now to "screw up," and even though we may perceive Trump's comments as inaccurate, racist, and misogynistic, he finds himself right with Hilary Clinton, in a close race for the presidency. Mrs. Clinton, poke holes in Trump's ideologies- about the effectiveness of building a wall, the absurdness of restricting Muslim movement into the US, his economic policies. But please, do not let Donald Trump dominate the conversation, do not let him bully you into silence and harness the spirit of the people.

Win it...

Realignment - Maybe not Mr. Brooks

David Brooks' Realignment Won't Happen by David Atkins - Washington Monthly


Summary:

David Brooks correctly asserts that there is a comfortable "upper crust" benefiting from globalization and increases in asset prices, while a large set of middle and working castes experience a decline in wealth.  Atkins explains that Brooks expects the "great faction of millennials and workers of all races" to join Republicans while Democrats secure the support of Silicon Valley and Wall Street. However, Atkins points to the social and neurological factors that lead to the general liberal or conservative tendencies and how these feelings are stronger than any immediate response to economic anxiety.  As such, there will be no major party realignment.  In fact, Atkins expects the Republicans to create a happier version of the race conscious economic protectionism that clings to a reactionary belief in the good old days.  The Democrats will have to deal with an intra-party struggle between the progressives and the "establishmentarians."  If Atkins is correct, the Republicans will become a "regional minority party" because the demographic shifts do not favor their base, while it remains to be seen whether Wall Street or Main Street will prevail amongst the Democrats.  

Questions:
Do you think that how our brains respond to certain stimuli can predict our political identity?
How much of a factor is race in this situation?
What is the most or least compelling part of Atkins' argument?
What will happen in the future to the parties?

Realignment In the Near Future?

Time for a Realignment? by David Brooks, New York Times

Summary:

David Brooks claims the unpopularity of Trump and Clinton is not what is making this election a transformational moment. Existing partisan mentalities are dying out and the current social divide will likely lead to some sort of party realignment in the near future.  Brooks says "the molten core of the Republicans is the dispossessed" while the Democratic core consists of the "coastal professional class."  These disparate groups have a huge trust gap in terms of trusting their neighbors, governmental institutions and surely the 21st century global economy.  If certain groups within each party, minority dispossessed Democrats and Republican professionals, recognize the molten core does not reflect their values, one can expert some party realignment.  For example, the Sanders Democrats and Camber of Commerce Republicans will not stay with their respective parties if the party leaves them ideologically.  According to Brooks, this is likely given the fact the social, mental and emotional gap between the core groups will widen.

Questions:

Is David Brooks' bold claim accurate?
Can the Republican Party gain popularity with minority voters, especially if their message focuses on struggles in response to globalization?
Can the Democrats balance constituencies such as upper income professionals who have benefited from the 21st century global economy with the millenials who will graduate will record levels of student debt?