Why I Take the Donald Trump Campaign Seriously, and You Should Too.

In the past few months we have begun the search for the next President of the United States of America. This year and a half process of deciding who will be given enormous amounts of power over human life in this country cannot be taken lightly. Who we decide to elect president will most likely have a wide range of impacts, from supreme court nominees, to military conflicts, to economic affairs. Each citizen has been given the right to vote, to help decide who that person should be. This right should never be taken lightly, as generations have fought so all may have and retain it.

Many have deemed the democratic nomination to be a shoo in for Hilary Clinton, most are not considering any other candidates for nomination. On the other side, 16 republicans have announced their candidacy. Of these 16 -which includes several governors with exceptional records, and several senators- Donald Trump is the current front runner for the republican nomination. Though many people have thought his whole presidential campaign is nothing more than a publicity stunt, many people are taking him seriously as a candidate. While I support his right to run, I am concerned with why people support him.

My recent experience with Trump supporters has made me question whether or not they even know where he stands on the issues, or if they are more anti-establishment, anti-Washington, and anti-political correctness. Trump is known for his brash talk with bold statements on issues such as immigration and veterans. He has attacked establishment mainstays like John McCain and Lindsay Graham in sometimes sophomoric ways leading many to call for apologies which never came.

Some people appreciate that unapologetic personality and think that kind of attitude is what we need to have in Washington leading our country. Others say the reason they support Trump because you know he'll do what he says. Many have told me it is because he has been such a successful businessman that we need someone who understands business in the white house. 

Those I have come in contact with have no idea where he sits on most issues aside from immigration. So where does Donald Trump stand on the issues?

Speaking about healthcare he said: "It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare."

On gun control: "I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun."

On tax reform: "If we want jobs in America, we need to enact my 5-part tax policy: kill the death tax; lower the tax rates on capital gains & dividends; eliminate corporate taxes in order to create more American jobs; mandate a 15% tax for outsourcing jobs and a 20% tax for importing goods, and enact the 1-5-10-15 income tax plan [four brackets with a top rate of 15%]."

Now he has many more stances on many more issues including abortion, education, etc. Sometimes he has stayed steady, sometimes he has flip flopped. If you are considering supporting him, please read up on what he has said over the years on the issues.

For those who are supporting him because they think he'll be outspoken and unapologetic in the White House, I would like to point you to our current president. No matter what has happened, he has been unapologetic: Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, VA, the Middle East, etc. That is not how you heal America, that is how you divide it further. We need less divisiveness and more compromise among our nation's leaders.

For those who say that they support Trump because - as one person put it - "at least you know what you will get with him, or do you want some one like we have now who says what you wanna hear then does nothing?" My response is that no candidate will ever be perfect on doing everything he says he will do - that is the reality of the presidency.

Sometimes they realize they don't have the authority to do those things, often they realize there are reasons for that, and lastly we are electing a president with constitutionally limited powers, not a king. Even if Donald Trump is elected president, he won't, and can't do all of the things he claims he would do. Some of those things are not within the powers of the president to enact.

We can only consider what he has said in the past, because we have no true political record of how he would act to follow. I say this because, when considering his record, you have to consider: what record does Donald Trump have of accomplishing anything without having either a contractual obligation or a monetary incentive to accomplish it? As president he will have neither.

The real reason why he's getting a boost right now is more than likely a disgruntled GOP electorate. Early polls are no guarantee who will be the nominee by far. At this point four years ago Rick Santorum was leading in the polls. As the debates near, I encourage you to consider every candidate just as I will, where they stand on the issues now, and what they have accomplished in the past.

Please read what each candidate has done, what they say and think about what is best for all of America. This is not a time to rush onto a bandwagon because a candidate is bold or is popular. This is the time to contemplate the future of America and who we think will be best to lead it. 

You are still  allowed to support Donald Trump, but I ask that you consider all of the candidates as well. Read about them and where they are on the issues, what they have done with their time in the private sector and in office. Please take your duty as a citizen of this great nation seriously.

Syria

By Keil Myers
The United States has exhibited some hesitancy to support the opposition to the Assad regime in the Syria civil war. One reason for this lukewarm support is most likely due to the composition of the major Syrian rebel groups where they almost all have ties to Muslim extremist organizations such as Al-Qaeda. In Addition to this opposition groups have been shown to commit various human rights abuses. Such items understandably make the United States less willing to fully commit to assisting these groups for fear of merely replacing one problem with another potentially larger one. Nevertheless, such reluctance is leading to exactly what the United States fears and further intervention is required in order to limit the damage that this war will cause.

There are several major opposition groups with some of the larger ones including the Free Syria Army which is a group primarily made up of military deserters along with multiple smaller militias note under the direct control of the main FSA. These groups have been indicted of human rights violations with the most recent case being in the last month where a video was taken of a FSA commander eating the heart of a dead Syrian soldier. Along with this the FSA has worked with groups such as Al Nusra, a group that has sworn allegiance to Al-Qaeda such ties have made the United States somewhat reluctant to become heavily involved with opposition groups like the FSA. However, with the more than the reluctant support that the United States has displayed the FSA could potentially strengthen its control of the groups and individuals currently outside of its control.

The next largest opposition group to the Assad regime is the Syrian Nation Council. This group was, until recently, widely considered the voice of the Syrian people. The SNC is a loose coalition of representatives from various groups with the organization itself based in Turkey. However, the United States was hesitant to trust the SNC due to its heavy ties with the Muslim Brotherhood with many in Syria itself seeing the SNC as
a front for the organization and one member of the council claimed that the majority of the members of the council were Muslim extremists. Ties with the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist groups have made the United States and other western nations less willing to assist the SNC and why they chose to merge with the Syrian National Coalition. 

Formed in 2012 in order to provide a more inclusive government than the Syrian National Coalition is the largest opposition group has been generally recognized as the legitimate government of the Syrian people. The National Coalition consists of a larger number of groups including members of the Syrian National Council, the Free Syria Army, various local committees, as well as other religious and secular groups.  While not all of these groups have ties to extremist Islam many of them do. Nevertheless, the majority of the coalition is made up of individuals and groups that would be willing to moderate their position as the situation required and they deserve more than the weak support that the United States has provided so far.



So while the United States reluctance to support the rebel groups is understandable as things stand not intervening in Syria is more likely to cause more damage than intervening. In the last few weeks reports from Washington and the United Nations Security Council has stated that they are almost certain that members of the Assad regime have employed chemical weapons on the rebels. Last year President Obama proclaimed that the use of chemical weapons was the red line, which if crossed would prompt a response from the United States. Use of these weapons is unethical and their use should prompt the United States to abandon its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to limit the collateral damage to civilians. In addition to this such actions would serve to let the world know that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated.

In addition to this, the United States reluctance to help the rebels is helping to radicalize the revolution in Syria. Similar to Ho Chi Minh and other revolutionaries the rebels in Syria and willing to adopt the philosophies and attitudes of those who are willing to help them in their revolution and as a result the number of Islamic radicals in the opposition is growing. For instance, The Economist recently reported that due to the western world's hesitancy to support the opposition, members of the opposition haveturned to Islamist groups for support. This support has led to those who are more extreme to become more powerful and to have greater influence in the revolution. This radicalization has made the made increased involvement distasteful to western governments leading to moderate politics to enter a death spiral in the opposition. The United States should shed its reluctance to assist the rebels in order to ingratiate itself to the rebels and increase the influence of voices favorable to the United States in the coming government.

The United States reluctance to increase its involvement with the Syrian is understandable considering the most of the opposition may be worse than the Assad regime. Their hesitance has driven the opposition towards greater radicalization and  weakened the moderates in the opposition. Nevertheless in the face of the increasing  radicalization and the use of chemical weapons the United States should forgo their fears and become further involved in supporting the Syrian opposition in order to limit the damage of this civil war to the Syrian people as well as the spread of Islamic radicalism in the Middle East.

Here’s a brief summary of the different rebel factions in case anyone is interested.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218