Debate shows future of our country

Sam Johnson

The five people who may one day
possess the power of the strongest country
in the world have finally duked it out
for the first time.
The Democratic debate started off
with an introductions and the canidate’s
reasoning as to why they should be
president, (many mentioning their successful
children as if their kids doing
something with their lives gave them
any merit whatsoever).
The moderator let the three less popular
candidates go first, which only resulted
in two minutes of hearing a middle-
aged man flaunt his ego and tell us
how great he is and how he is so deserving
of the position he desires so badly.
Eventually it got to senator Sanders,
who rather than taking up all of our
time talking about how he deserves to
be president, laid out what he will do if
he takes office. He garnered a very loud
and passionate response from the audience,
as opposed tp the dull, unenthusiastic
claps that the previous men had
Once all of the candidates were done
with their introductions, the actual debate
could finally start.
Although there were five debaters,
it should have just been between the
only two people with a fighting chance
leading the race — Bernie Sanders and
Hillary Clinton. The moderator clearly
favored them, giving them more important
questions and generally asking
them to answer first before the other
candidates, even completely cutting off
other attendees at times.
Like many were hoping, Hillary Clinton’s
e-mail scandal was brought up.
The other candidates wasted no time
pushing the subject, demanding answers
from her about it.
Lincoln Chafee said that “We need to
repair American credibility,” the implication
obviously being that Clinton is
not a trustworthy leader. When senator
Sanders was tasked with responding to
her e-mail scandal, he stated that “The
American people are sick and tired of
hearing about [her] e-mails,” earning
him applause and even a standing ovation
from the crowd.
Unfortunately, none of the candidates
seemed to take a stand on how they will
balance the federal budget other than
raising taxes on the rich, although their
wealth alone is not enough to fix the
Instead of directly answering the
question about how they would balance
the budget, they would just say how
they are going to fix America and (x)
thing to fix (y), which would generally
only be about social issues rather than
an economic one.
When the topic of gun control came
about, there was discussion about possibly
holding the gun manufacturers
liable for mass murders and even dayto-
day violence. Surely, this is not an
efficient way to go with gun control.
The idea of holding the manufacturer
liable for what the individual did with
the gun makes just as much sense for
holding car companies liable for the
deaths caused by drunk drivers.What
the owner of that gun did with it was
their own choice.
Mass murders could be prevented if
background checks and mental health
examinations were more thorough,
which would shift the blame to a different
party and therfore avoid the main issue
of gun violence in the United States
It is good that the candidates are
thinking about the issues that are facing
America right now, that they have high
hopes and good intentions and that they
have a vision to make the U.S. better
But a country is not run on good intentions
– it is run on strong, level-headed,
informed leadership and it seemed like
none of these candidates were ready to
be that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: