The GOP Debates Are a Joke. Here Is How to Fix Them.

Image Source: Flickr

After watching nearly every GOP debate for the 2016 election I've come to the conclusion that we need to fundamentally change the way the debates are run. Because when they yell over each other, ratings go up and we know that these networks only care about the ratings. The focus should be on policy and experience, instead it's about entertainment. These debates are not centered on who is the best choice for president, but who gives the best gotcha line. Even the post debate coverage is often short clips of jabs that one candidate did against another. 

Here are 7 suggestions to fundamentally change the way the debates are run:

1. Debates not controlled by network news. Whether it's CSPAN, or an independent group, we need to get the networks out of the debates. They want their ratings to go up, not for us to have high quality debates. All networks shall have access to broadcast the debates. Also all debates will be broadcast live on the internet, without a paid subscription. There will be  time for a break in which ads can be played, but they must not be of a political nature.
2. Mute the other candidates mics when a candidate is speaking or the moderator is asking a question. No one can talk over another candidate, and candidates cannot get into shouting matches.

2. All questions must be related to a policy question, or a candidate's experience. No more questions about what someone else said. 

3. No response time for personal attacks, and all personal attacks reduce future talking time by 30 seconds per attack. Policy attacks are open game. Character attacks are off limits.

4. Once the field narrows to 5 candidates, allot a longer time for each initial response. One minute is hardly enough time to cover important policy topics.

5. The audience is to be quiet or removed from the debate. This has been done before. There is no need to have an audience and the booing and cheering interrupts and wastes time. Mics should not be placed to pick up the Audience
6. Each candidate will be asked an equal number of questions and time to speak. Time of each candidates speaking will be measured and if one candidate is getting less time, they will be allotted additional time to answer a question.
7. 20 seconds to the end of the time that is allotted per question the candidates will be given a warning buzz. 10 seconds after their allotted time their mics are muted.

If we treat the debates like they're a circus or a wrestling match then they are only good for entertainment. If we treat our nation's selection of the next president of the United States with respect, we will possibly see a rise of better policies, and maybe more civility in politics. 

10 Questions That Should Be Asked at the Next Republican Presidential Debate

Source:Flickr

The second Republican Presidential debate is Wednesday night 8 PM ET on CNN. The last debate afforded each candidate only a few minutes to answer questions.  With the large group of candidates we have, we probably won't be able to see each of these questions answered by each candidate, but I have outlined 10 questions that I wish I could hear each candidate answer.

Under each question I have outlined several other points that need to be addressed, and possible follow up questions for the candidates. Often our debates stop focusing on the issues and start to be shows of entertainment and popularity. We should try to focus on what matters most in our country. I have tried to base my questions on that ideal-that the debates should be about substance not delivery.

1.What is your plan to address immigration reform?
-Some candidates should be asked about their plans such as Trump, whose plan has been deemed by many as unrealistic at best.
-Others support plans to allow illegals to stay, how do they defend that to people who are unemployed or taxpayers who pay at least part of the bill?
-If you are opposed to deportation how do you justify all of the money spent on illegals (education, healthcare and benefits to children etc.)?
-How do you justify it when so many are still out of work?
-How do you plan to secure the border?

2. How do you plan to decrease the deficit and balance the budget?
-What are the  specifics of their plans, some candidates are supporting tax cuts without specifying what they will cut to offset those tax cuts.
-Do you support increasing taxes in any way?
-What do you think about a national sales tax?

3. Do you support or oppose the Iran nuclear deal?
-As commander and chief if you oppose it will you commit to use of military force in Iran?
-If you support it, what would you do if Iran is found cheating on the plan?
-With evidence showing Iranian support of Isis how do you justify supporting the deal?

4. Do you support defunding planned parenthood?
-How would you address those who are concerned about the loss of women's health clinics?
-If you don't support defunding, how will you address the federal government giving half a billion dollars a year to the biggest provider of abortions in our country?

5. The U.S. infrastructure has received a D rating. How would you address our failing infrastructure?
-Some estimates estimate we need to spend hundreds of billions of dollars right now just to bring our infrastructure up to date, including 60,000 bridges which are in need of immediate repair or replacement how will you fund this?
-In what ways will you bring our infrastructure into the 21st century?

6. What are your plans to reform education?
-If you are opposed or support common core how do you think national education should be handled?
-Do you support a national curriculum?
-What are your plans to push our nation forward in education?

7. Do you support legalizing less harmful drugs like marijuana?
-The war on drugs has been costly, how would you address those who say that the war on drugs has failed?
-How do you justify continuing to imprison people for having very small amounts of marijuana on them.
-Do you support drug courts where a person gets treatment instead of going to jail?
-If they support legalization, how do you justify legalizing drugs which can have negative impacts on the brain?
-Do you support more research for DUI testing methods like breathalyzers for marijuana?


8. What is your plan to strengthen our economy?
-Many believe regulations are crippling our economy, as president what regulations would you change?
-Many are concerned about the affects income inequality is having on our country, with wealth increasingly going to the richest 1%. How do you address these concerns as president?
-Consumer debt has almost equaled our national debt, how would you address the growing concerns over the massive amount of debt which is becoming a drag on our economy, especially student loan debt?


9. How will you bring people together to move America forward? Great leaders are measured by what they have done working through compromise to accomplish. We have had too much extremism and not enough listening and compromise.
-What would you do to work across the aisle?
-How have you worked across the aisle to get things done?
-How would you work to mend the wounds within our nation?


10. The next president will inherit 3 massive trade deals the TPP, TTIP and TISA. Would trade negotiations change under your presidency?
-How would you address our growing trade deficit?
-How would you use trade to move our nation forward in the years to come?

What would you like to see asked in the debate? Comment with your question below.

Fact Check: Trump on Iran and 'Do These Republican Senators Support the Iran Deal?'

Last Saturday in an interview on the "John Fredericks Show" Trump made a statement about the Iran deal: "If Israel attacks Iran, I think -- of course this wouldn’t happen, it wouldn’t happen with me, with Obama you never know -- but we’re supposed to be on Iran’s side if this happens. OK? And nobody knows this and even talks about that point but, basically, we’re supposed to protect them."

Earlier that day in an interview with CNN he made similar comments on the topic: "You know, there is something in the Iran deal that people I don't think really understand or know about," he said. "And nobody is able it to explain it, that if somebody attacks Iran, we have to come to their defense."

So I wondered, is it true that the U.S. has to support Iran if they enter into armed conflict with Israel? Let's dig into the facts. According to Politifact: 

"At the heart of the claim is Article 10, Annex III, of the accord which states:

"E3/EU+3 parties, and possibly other states, as appropriate, are prepared to cooperate with Iran on the implementation of nuclear security guidelines and best practices."

That includes the following:

• "Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran's ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

• "Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems."

This article has been criticized in the Israeli media.

"One of the clauses in the nuclear deal reached between world powers and Iran last week guarantees that the world powers will assist Iran in thwarting attempts to undermine its nuclear program," Israel Hayom, a newsletter, said July 20.

But experts told PolitiFact Florida in late July that such interpretations are, at best, exaggerated. The aim of the provision, they said, is to protect nuclear materials from theft (say, if terrorists tried to steal Iranian assets) or from sabotage (with the intent of causing a hazardous-materials threat to health)."

It is also important to note that this deal is not being presented as a treaty; it is considered an "executive agreement" and therefore doesn't have much hold on the U.S. When a new president is sworn into office in 2017, he or she will have to decide what to do with the agreement and whether or not they will continue to follow it.

Earlier this year during a committee hearing, Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio questioned Secretary Ernest Moniz and Secretary John Kerry about this provision:

Rubio: "If Israel decides it does not like this deal and decides it wants to sabotage an Iranian nuclear program or facility. Does this deal that we have just signed obligate us to defend Iran against Israeli sabotage or for that matter the sabotage of any other country in the world

Moniz: "I believe that applies to physical security and safeguards all of our options and those of our allies would remain in place."

Rubio:If Israel conducts an airstrike against a physical facility, does this deal, the way I read it, does it require us to help Iran protect and respond to that threat?"

Kerry: "No. The purpose of that is to have longer term guarantees as we enter the world in which cyber warfare that when you are going to have nuclear capacities we want to make sure you are properly protected. But I can assure you we are going to coordinate in every possible way with Israel."

Rubio: "If Israel conducts a cyber attack against the Iranian nuclear program, are we obligated to help them defend themselves against the Israeli cyberattack?"

Kerry: "No, I assure you, that we will be coordinating very, very closely with Israel as we do on every aspect of Israel’s security."

It seems pretty clear that while there are some security features in here, that we will not be required under the deal to protect Iran against Israel. This claim is rated false.

Going along with this I also came across another claim on facebook, that several Republican senators had supported the Iran deal.

The claim is simply that these senators supported the Iran deal. We took a look at each of these senators press releases and statements to the media. 

Senator John McCain is one of the leading opponents of the deal and has even gone so far as to call Secretary Kerry "delusional." 

Senator Lindsey Graham has made opposing the Iran deal a central part of his presidential campaign message.

Senator Hatch stated: “For decades, the Iranian regime has been dangerous in its aims and duplicitous in its quest for nuclear weapons.  Any deal that removes sanctions without robust means of ensuring the regime's disarmament and compliance with its international obligations is worse than no deal at all.  Empowered by the bipartisan Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act that we passed into law earlier this year, Congress must fully scrutinize this agreement and must not hesitate to oppose the deal if it endangers the security of the United States or our allies in the region.” He has been a major opponent of the bill.

Senator Alexander opposes the deal stating that it "does not sufficiently restrict Iran's nuclear program and makes no effort to put a brake on its other conduct as the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism." He continued,"The agreement puts some limits on Iran's nuclear program, but it also legitimizes it, thereby encouraging a nuclear arms race in the most unstable area of the world," Alexander said. "The agreement takes the pressure off Iran at a time when pressure is likely to succeed."

Senator Coats' statement on the deal explains:

"Members of Congress now have the opportunity to review the pending deal, and every member must determine what this deal buys us and at what cost. We must ignore the coming public relations campaign that will trumpet this deal as a victory for diplomacy and the false premise that the deal is a choice between peace and war."

President Obama has defended his deal by challenging critics to put forth an alternative. How about exercising American leadership and enacting more vigorous sanctions to persuade the Iranian leaders to reconsider their positions or persuade the Iranian people to reconsider their leaders?

Congress should reject this bad deal."

Senator Corker stated that “Rather than end Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, over time this deal industrializes the program of the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. ... Congress should reject this deal and send it back to the president.”

Senator Flake said he opposes the deal because “While Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions on Iran for behavior on the non-nuclear side, these assurances do not square with the text of the [agreement]," 

Senator Perdue plainly stated that the senate should "reject the deal"

To put it simply, this post is flat out false on all counts. There isn't a shred of truth to the statement. If you see a friend post this meme or the above quote please feel free to refer them to this article.

Jobs Report: 5.1 Unemployment Rate Doesn't Tell the Whole Story

The monthly jobs report in the U.S. comes from the Bureau of Labor statistics'(BLS) Current Population Survey(CPS). The CPS is a survey conducted by the United States Census Bureau for the BLS. The BLS uses the data to provide a monthly report on the Employment Situation in the U.S. This report provides estimates of the number people who are employed and unemployed in the United States.

In August, the economy added an estimated 173,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropped to 5.1%. This is lower than the estimated 217,000 jobs most economists had expected.Employment in health care rose by 41,000. Employment in financial activities rose by 19,000 in August.
in August. 

Though America has added jobs in recent months, this is a good reason to be optimistic. There is some concern  that the increase in jobs has not been seen as widely in the manufacturing, according to Thomas Hemphill & Mark Perry :

"In September 2012, President Obama announced a national goal to create 1 million new manufacturing positions by the end of 2016. Since that announcement, the US manufacturing sector has created payroll jobs at a rate of only 11,000 per month and fewer than 300,000 jobs in total over the last 27 months. That rate of factory job creation would generate only about 560,000 new jobs by the time Obama leaves office -- a 440,000 job shortfall compared to the president's unrealistic goal of 1 million new factory jobs by the end of next year."

"We'll be lucky if we gain 600,000 jobs by next December. Even in that case, factory employment would only return to the January 2009 level of about 12.5 million payroll jobs, which at that time was the lowest level since the late 1940s, and 7 million jobs below the 1979-peak of 19.5 million factory jobs."


27 thousand jobs in manufacturing mining and logging were lost last month, undoing all the gains from the previous month. The lack of manufacturing jobs is a concern because they provide stability and strength to the economy.

So is the 5.1% number telling us the full story? The number you see in the headlines is referred to as the U-3 number which does not include:

• People who have been out of work for more than a year
• Those in part-time positions for people who would prefer full-time employment
• People so discouraged that they’ve stopped looking for work

When we include these numbers, referred to as the U-6, the unemployment rate is nearer to 10% down from 12% last year. It is important to note that both numbers have been decreasing steadily since the beginning of the recession, and especially within the last two years. It is unclear why the news media only uses the U-3 number in their report.

The unemployment rate drop can also be attributed to fewer people being counted as out of work but instead being considered outside of the workforce. The jobs report’s survey puts the number of unemployed persons down 237,000 to 8 million. The number of people out of the workforce climbed 261,000 to a fresh record of 94 million. We currently have the lowest labor participation rate in decades.

This can be attributed though to increased retirement by the baby boom generation. The survey includes all working age adults (age 16 and up). 94 million includes all stay at home mom's, people in college, and those who are retired.

Why does the unemployment number matter so much right now? The Federal Reserve has waited for the economy to show enough strength to start increasing interest rates. Most economists believed that if August showed strong numbers in job growth that would be the signal to being increases. One concern has been wages, which have not shown much growth for the last year, but which grew 8 cents in the month of August, which is cause for optimism.

While the report may not change views that the U.S. economy remains strong, the global markets remain unsteady including significant decline in China. This instability could further complicate the Fed's decision at a policy meeting mid month.

The reason why the interest rate is so important to job growth as explained by CNN Money:

"One of the Federal Reserve’s mandates is is to maintain full employment. When unemployment rises, it can try to stimulate growth by cutting rates. The idea is that cheaper borrowing makes it easier for consumers to spend and for businesses to expand and hire new workers. The flipside is that higher interest rates and tighter money supply can make hiring less likely. That’s one of the reasons the Fed has been so hesitant to raise rates in recent years, and there’s a risk that a too-early rate hike will cut off job growth."

Overall the continued growth is a good sign for the economy and it is likely we will start to see interest rates increase in September. Most of the indicators for the U.S. economy are showing good signs.

Iran Deal Reached With World Powers Met With Mixed Reactions

This morning President Obama addressed the nation announcing that Iran and 6 nations have reached a deal to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities while lifting oil and financial sanctions. The deal comes after 20 months of negotiations signaling what President Obama hopes to be the signature diplomatic accomplishment of his presidency.

Speaker John Boehner has spoken out against the deal.“At the outset of these talks, the Obama administration said it would secure an agreement that affirmed Iran does not have a right to enrich and permanently dismantles the infrastructure of its nuclear programs." “The American people and our allies were counting on President Obama to keep his word.  Instead, the president has abandoned his own goals.  His 'deal' will hand Iran billions in sanctions relief while giving it time and space to reach a break-out threshold to produce a nuclear bomb - all without cheating." He continued, "instead of making the world less dangerous, this ‘deal’ will only embolden Iran – the world’s largest sponsor of terror – by helping stabilize and legitimize its regime."

Knowing of the possible actions by Congress against this deal the president stated simply “I will veto any legislation that prevents the successful implementation of this deal.”

Critics are suggesting that one possible reason that the administration struck this deal was to try and make an ally out of Iran. This would be a foolish expectation from a country that has made numerous threats against us and our allies, and once invaded our embassy holding captive our citizens.Many continue to be  wary of Iran, for good reason, as the government has openly supported terrorist organizations in the middle east, and has made significant threats against our ally Israel.

Some believe that the deal has little chance of being kept, and that the other parties of the deal will have little incentive to impose sanctions in the future if Iran fails to meet requirements.However, Secretary of State John Kerry believes this will stop Iran from having a nuclear bomb for more than a decade. “Iran will not produce or acquire highly enriched uranium or plutonium for at least 15 years,” he said. Measures to ensure this, he added, would “stay in place permanently.”

Watch Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech on the Iran deal:

The Jobless Recovery: What the Media Isn't Telling You

As I said before, often the mainstream media doesn't report the whole truth of what is going on in our country. While they may be aware that we are still coming out of a recession, the media reports that unemployment is around 7 percent nationwide. The truth is that our unemployment is closer to 23 percent according to government shadow statistics.

The 7 percent number makes things not sound as bad right? Well that's because it doesn't include people who have been out of work for more than a year, those in part-time positions who’d prefer full-time jobs and people who are so discouraged that they’ve stopped looking for work. This is the lie that the media is telling you.

What you haven’t heard is jobless claims unexpectedly went up 40,000 more than expected last week. Initial claims were at a seasonally adjusted 379,000 according to the Labor Department. That is the highest level since march and it was the second straight week that claims have risen.

Additionally, More than 4.4 million people received unemployment benefits in the week ended Nov. 30, the latest data available. That was 600,000 more than the previous week. The majority of recent college graduates cannot find work in their field, and many who are often are underemployed.

For those who are job hunting, many are ending up at temp agencies, hoping somehow to get enough money to pay next month's rent. But that'll be one more job added to payrolls next month, when that college grad starts temping for 9 dollars an hour.

To top it off, congress was the least productive it has been in decades, and is considered to be the worst ever according to a recent CNN poll. Between government shutdowns and debt ceiling debates it's clear that our leaders aren't focused on helping us.

So what has the media been focused on? Well let's see, Mega Millions, Duck Dynasty, Miley Cyrus, not to mention the whole Black/White  Santa scandal, all of which the CNN, MSNBC and FOX News have spent countless hours debating, discussing and picking apart every detail.

We need to wake up to what is going on in America, unemployment and underemployment are much higher than we are being told, and there must be further discussion on what can be done to solve these problems by the media and our leaders.

Mitt Romney, CNN and Religious Fanaticism

Earlier yesterday I posted about civility in political discourse. On April 27th Mitt Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts and former GOP Presidential Nominee spoke at a commencement for a small college in south western Virginia called Southern Virginia University. The University has 725 students enrolled, and a graduating class of 125 students. Afterward, CNN had this to say:



A few points I would like to make about the speech itself before I begin discussing CNN's commentary on the issue. While the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints(LDS Church) does not own SVU, the University is over 90% LDS presided over by a former general authority of the LDS church. His speech was centered around religious thought it is true, as he was speaking to a religious audience.  The portion of the speech that CNN used was quoting from a verse from Psalms 127:3-5: 

"Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate."

What was Romney advocating? He was advocating for good people to get married and have kids, something he has experience in, and has found joy in. Later in his speech Romney also said “I don’t think God cares whether you get rich…life on this Earth is about learning to live and work in a place where God does not make everything work out for good people,” he said. “The best advice I know is to give those worldly things your best but never your all.”

To paraphrase his speech his message was that as graduates-men and women we need to launch out into the deep, and that by launching deep we are challenged greatly and have the possibility, if we persevere, to have extremely rewarding experiences. He stated that being a husband and a father have been the most challenging and rewarding parts of his life. That by facing these challenges we would grow like no other opportunity would allow us.

It is interesting that CNN was so quick to call this religious fanaticism. That encouraging getting married and having children is now considered to mean a person is a fanatic. Let's do a little symantic study into the idea of what the word fanatic means: "A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause." What they are implying is "this is extreme religious thought that Romney is advocating, and that this is why he lost the election." 

I do agree with them on one point though-this is the real Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney is a man that is dedicated to his family, supporting and loving his wife, his 5 sons and his many grandchildren. He spent many years as a lay clergyman serving others. His religion is part of who he is and he has never denied that. 

If I get this right; if I speak from my heart on matters of both home and religion in to a religious audience, that now labels me as a religious fanatic? Such extremism and absolutism seems to me a bit extreme myself.

My point is mostly this: I feel that there has been an unusually high bias against religious thought in popular culture and that any appeal to the bible or religious doctrine to support good policy is somehow "radical" or "fanatical" thought. Romney was not suggesting we get married at 16 or that we marry goats which would be extreme. He was talking to college graduates and those who would be finishing in the next few years and telling them that they should get married and have kids because that is what he did and that it has made his own life better.

On a personal note, my own marriage has been the best thing in my life and I haven't regretted it once. It has been challenging and has driven me to be better, and the rewards have been enormous for me. For most of the general population this is true. The benefits of marriage for the general public have been studied at length and are far reaching from health to wealth. 

Some of these benefits include:

1. Increasing Your Pay
A Virginia Commonwealth University study found that married men earn 22 percent more than their similarly experienced but single colleagues.

2. Speed Up Your Next Promotion
Married men receive higher performance ratings and faster promotions than bachelors, a 2005 study of U.S. Navy officers reported.

3. Keep You Out of Trouble
According to a recent U.S. Department of Justice report, male victims of violent crime are nearly four times more likely to be single than married. You may remember this as Mitt Romney mentioned that one way we could decrease crime is to have two parents and for men to marry.

4. Help You Beat Cancer
In a Norwegian study, divorced and never-married male cancer patients had 11 and 16 percent higher mortality rates, respectively, than their married counterparts.

5. Help You Live Longer
A UCLA study found that people were 88 percent more likely to die over the 8-year study period than if they were single.  To quote from the study:
"Virtually every study of mortality and marital status shows the unmarried of both sexes have higher death rates, whether by accident, disease, or self-inflicted wounds, and this is found in every country that maintains accurate health statistics.”

6. It is Likely to Help You Remain Sane and Happier 
Several studies have shown that men who are married have lower instance of mental health issues than the general public and generally remain happier throughout their life



Not all of popular media took the same view as CNN though, an article from the Atlantic said this about Romney's speech:
 "In this passage, Romney articulates the so-called "cornerstone" theory of marriage: that marriage is an institution worth building life on, not something to enter into once you're already established in life. This vision of marriage is countercultural at the moment, of course: As the National Marriage Project's "Knot Yet" report shows, people are getting married later and later, and more and more people are seeing marriage as a "capstone" to life's achievements rather than a foundation for those achievements (and inevitable disappointments)."
The article continues:

"More remarkable, in my view, is how he holds in tension two ideas that often drown each other out in discussions of marriage: that marriage is both 'tremendously challenging' and 'enormously rewarding.' As I've written about before, people today tend to have an unrealistically rosy view of marriage—that it'll be an endlessly fun, sex-filled slumber party—or an unnecessarily negative one—that the institution is so broken it's not worth entering into. Both of those perceptions of marriage are too extreme. Marriage is good, but hard. Marriage is hard, but good."

I am glad that one organization was willing to view what Romney had said and look for the positive in it rather than belittling and condescending the man. I am glad they analyzed it and adapted it to their own perspective, and then reported what they learned, rather than attack the man without considering what he was saying. 

To CNN and the other news outlets that had negative things to say about Romney I ask this: So if it is counterculture to tell men and women to get married is this really a bad thing? Mitt Romney was not glorifying marriage as the end-all be-all of life or this blissful happily ever after thing. He said that it is "tremendously challenging" and "enormously rewarding." He said that by doing so you would be stretching and learning and that you would find great rewards from doing so based upon his own familial and religious experience.

I find it a little disturbing CNN's coverage had no defense for Romney's speech, not one person stood up for his point of view, and said "hey this guy was really saying..." but instead they shrunk to hitting a man for his religious beliefs. This kind of incivility in the media is both shameful and saddening to me. I hope that in the future we can learn to disagree with a person's beliefs without shrinking to attacks on their person. 

To watch his full speech see the video below.