The amount of entertainers opting not to participate has been unprecedented. This entire election has been the oddest yet in our countries history. Sure, we've seen people decline these invitations in the past due to which party one or something as ridiculous as the color of one's skin. We just haven't ever seen it at the numbers we see this year. Those who shrug these events off as being non-important are approaching this issue with blinders on. The series of events we are witnessing have little to do with a Republican winning and more to do with the continuous reckless comments Trump makes as well as some of the more questionable appointments he has made to his cabinet. Since I don't approve of how either party has handled the issues that face our country for years, I look at these elected officials without the bias influence that both parties are guilty of. Trump needs to calm down and stop allowing his emotions control his messages. …show more content…
Everyone calling them traders, unpatriotic, etc., needs to reassess those statements. Whether or not people decide to call those unpatriotic, etc. because they don't support a President, will only backfire If that is the measure of being a patriot or loving the country, most party loyalists voters from both sides would be included. For many years I've seen both Democrats and Republicans say things like "he's not my President". So, before you judge these entertainers or anyone else for that matter, look within yourself. The word you might be looking for is a
Generally speaking, anyone who lives in the United States of America knows that there are two main political parties—the Republicans and the Democrats. Having two main parties has its advantages and, of course, its disadvantages. For example, in By the People James E. Monroe and Rogan Kersh (301) point out having this type of system creates “predictability and stability.” However, they also declare (301) it can “lead to a gridlock.” This is not a new concept either as there has been a divide since the beginning of both parties. The two parties more often than not disagree on various issues, while rarely agreeing on what is best for the country.
In the United States of America, the political party system is pivotal to the function of our nation. The political party system in our society today is separated between the Democrats and the Republicans. Although political parties do possess uncertainties their advantages outweigh their drawbacks in America. The United States of America is made up of two basic political parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. A political party is a group of individuals who share similar interest and they work together with one another to construct and execute policies. The Democratic Party was established in 1828, by Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was created based on a belief in an unyielding government and an advocacy of social and
So, the Republican National Convention is finally over! And I may sound like a broken record, but this really, bothered me. As you all have probably heard already, the whole thing was basically about fear.
The most powerful groups in American politics are the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), the AMA (American Medical Association), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the NRA (National Rifle Association). To begin, the NAACP holds great influence in the political spectrum where there vision is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race. Here their purpose and objectives attract the attention of the general public where they hold support and generate major revenue. Now for the AARP, this association represents the views of the older American population where they affect the health care system. Evidently their
Next there is the pressure of having to participate in televised presidential election debates. Those must be terrifying especially when they can’t afford to flub or make a verbal gaffe, especially not in the Internet era. Meanwhile their political opponents are earnestly hoping, waiting for them to commit some blunder or gaffe they can pounce on and getting blamed for numerous problems that aren't their fault while their own political supporters criticize them for not being conservative or liberal enough, depending on their political affiliation. At any given moment, there are numerous agendas and causes trying to get their attention while having to retain an insane amount of information and knowledge in their head at all times. No matter their political affiliation, there are tens of millions of Americans who despise them. No doubt at least thirty percent of the nation stands opposed to you and your policies at any given time and depending on circumstances, it may rise to as high of between forty percent and sixty
As the 2016 US Presidential Election rapidly approaches, Americans continue to stand divided by party lines, with the moderates being tugged on both sides, with hopes that swaying them will put a candidate in office. However, in this critical moment that recurs every 4 years in the nation’s history, the dichotomy is drawn even deeper between the Republican and Democratic parties, with candidates on either side suggesting radically different solutions to the nation’s problems. Paul Krugman, a famous American economist, would support Hillary Clinton for the 2016 National Democratic Primary and the 2016 Presidential Election due to the unrealistic growth expectations Republicans are promising, the healthy economic policy liberals support, and
The Republican party is one of the two major POLITICAL PARTIES in the United States, the other being the DEMOCRATIC PARTY party. It is popularly known as the GOP, from its earlier nickname Grand Old Party. From the time it ran its first PRESIDENTIAL candidate, John C. Fremont, in 1856, until the inauguration of Republican George BUSH in 1989, Republican presidents occupied the WHITE HOUSE for 80 years. Traditionally, Republican strength came primarily from New England and the Midwest. After World War II, however, it greatly increased in the Sunbelt states and the West. Generally speaking, after World War I the Republican party became the more conservative of the two major parties, with its support coming from
For the record, I don't think either party should be doing this. However, it is very hypocritical of the Democrats to say that the Republicans are obstructionists when the Democrats advocated the same thing against an outgoing Republican President. The lack of maturity on both sides is mind-boggling. Good grief people! If you advocated one position and flipped on it later, then don't lie about it. Tell what your original position was and state why you were wrong at that time or why you changed your position. It is this type of behavior that makes people not trust politicians.
The Grand New Party came alive in a small schoolhouse in Wisconsin when a group of abolitionist gathered to fight the expansion of slavery. The Republican party is now one of the two major political parties that makes up the United States political system. The Republican party typically sticks to more conservative views on major issues in the government. Three topics of constant concern for the party include taxation, gun control, and immigration.
This political cycle surely has made a spectacle of American politics. Donald Trump, the boisterous personality and current GOP presidential
In the 1790s, partisan politics emerged due to the opposing views on how the new nation should be governed. The two parties that developed were the Federalists and the Democratic –Republicans. The Republicans were a group that believed in the strong states’ rights, restricted power for the federal government, and a stern clarification of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the party. The Republicans ideal government favored liberty and believed that the government should be receptive to the people. The party believed that the states’ should be dominant in governing because they wanted assurance that individual liberties would be protected from government tyrants.
In 1992, Bill Clinton became the Democratic nominee and during his campaign, he became the first candidate to use popular TV shows to reach black and younger voters. (Toner, 1992)17 Clinton appeared on The Arsenio Hall Show, popular among African-Americans, where he played his saxophone. With months left until the I1994 election, Clinton appeared on MTV’s Rock the Vote special. His appearances helped him win support in the African-American community and among young voters between the ages of 18-to 29. Clinton’s success came from the personal approach and engagement he used to reach voters during the election year of 1992 and 1996. Clinton entered the environment of his targeted audience, and in 1996 according to the New York Times, it helped Clinton win the African-American (83%) and young (43%) vote (New York Times, 2008)18 (see Figure 1.2). In the end, Clinton’s appearances made him appear as a normal, trendy, and cool
According to Source C, “Our national politics has become a competition for images or between images, rather than between ideals.” This idea can lead to consequences because the person who has a better personality is not guaranteed to be the one who is more capable of leading a country. When the unqualified person is chosen to lead the country, then its citizens will suffer. In source B, the author states, “ Because of television’s celebrity system, Presidents are losing their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars.” Chances are people who are rock singers and movie stars do not know how to run a country because they focus only on their own image and prioritize that above everything else. In the case of an election, the president should be someone who holds up to the ideals of democracy. With the help of the television, candidate's actions are monitored at all times. But this influence can potentially transform the election into a personality contest that defeats the purpose of a fair
The growing connection between politics and Hollywood has happened for a number of reasons, in a somewhat cyclical fashion. Politicians need Hollywood stars to support their campaigns because celebrities are useful in fundraising attempts and recognition. They have the advantages of fame, wealth, and can easily command press attention. In return, celebrities endorse candidates whose policies are beneficial to their industry. For example, while Clinton was in office he argued for “industry self-regulation and a television rating system, as opposed to formal government regulation” (Ormand and West 38). For this and other reasons, Hollywood stars donated large sums of money to Democratic candidates in return. In 2000, Hollywood contributed $20 million to Democrats as opposed to the $13 million that was contributed to the less Hollywood-friendly Republican party (Ormand and West 40).
Many have thought the entertainment world should be separate from the world of politics. Some celebrities go on to be involved in politics, such as Ronald Reagan and Sonny Bono, but rarely does an entertainer command a large sphere of influence in the world of entertainment and politics simultaneously. While entertainers can move the masses, their voice is usually discarded among politicians. In addition to this, many have highlighted the negative influence of the entertainment industry, and particularly rock music, on American culture. Often, it is seen as a corrupting force that leads people astray. For many people, rock and roll seems to highlight all that is wrong with American popular culture. These critics fail to take note of