Blog Post #5

Voting is a linkage institution. It is this that gives people a say in what is to be in politics. Elections narrow down beliefs of the people by having them choose what is most important when choosing a candidate to vote for.

California: Kevin de Leon vs Dianne Feinstein.

Kevin De Leon:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=168&v=oDkBYLd4zh8 Kevin is the democratic child of an immigrant woman. He so shares a perspective with the folks the immigration issue is about. He believes that immigrants should be allowed to continue their residency. The video not only tells of his history but also his stance on the issue as well, both being related. This being such a heavily debated and popular issue and with such an important perspective in the matter it would assist him in his run for state Senator of California. Due to his personal relation of his mother to immigration, she being an immigrant he would be more passionate on the issue and has been described as being part of the informative education process. Now out of his prior position he receives death threats as he advocates issues, leading to high costs on security. His passion is his downfall. He had taken up a lower position than the one he had next to Dianne Feinstein. He fights current immigration policies not nation wide but on a state level "Kevin has led the fight against local law enforcement being commandeered to enforce federal immigration laws.". (ontheissues.org) With this subject being his utmost priority he is a bit too dedicated. Him and his oppenent share the view in solution though Kevin has a stronger feeling. This results in him not actually viewing the entirety of immigration but rather just residency. He does have a greater drive but his opponent is still viewing the situation in a bigger picture.

Dianne Feinstein: https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/immigration Feels new policies toward immigration are unfair. She wants them to be treated humanely and be welcomed from the danger that they're escaping. It is stated at the beginning policy is believed to have failed and needs to be fixed. The page not only states her feelings but also what she has done in response. She is an advocate for the passage of the Dream Act. Dianne is actively solving the big picture of immigration. Not only does she support bills for reformation she has made some of her own as told by her website "She is also the author of the Keep Families Together Act.". (feinstieinforca.com) She has a clearer target directed toward opposition of president Trump's policy. While her opponent is flying lower on the radar, on Dianne's website she is very consistently active addressing problems, as in the different areas within the topic. Though the references on her site are older from 2017 they are still diverse addressing the issue of immigration as well as the solution that can be found in D.A.C.A.

Dianne focuses her thoughts on immigration more towards the staying as the first paragraph on her website's section on immigration states "She has been a staunch advocate for a farm worker protection program as well as for passage of the Dream Act and protections for immigrant children" as opposed to the process of who gets in, it is a focus on who stays. She seems to be more active and winning in the polls, but this may be due to her already being in power. Kevin despite has such a pivotal perspective to the table. Both democratic candidates share the same side in the argument so the scales should not be too in favor of one. As Dianne Feinstein has already a foot in the door it may be another reason she is leading in popularity. While Kevin has a closer association and is tackling immigration on a whole and general scale, Dianne is more direct and due to her position already in power her stance won over. Currently Kevin has resigned his position in order to keep opposing Dianne, leading to the conclusion that she succeeded because Kevin was less focused on niether the campaign nor immigration as a whole on more sole fully on his opponent and oppositions to certain issues. On a smaller scale now he has shifted his problem solving focus from immigration to homelessness. On the issue of immigration currently and in the race Dianne Feinstein is more active. Kevin de Leon from an immigrant mother is too passionate and does not have other factors come into play while Dianne is more all around looking at the whole situation and is therefore more effective.  Kevin de Leon is running out of steam for this debate and has shifted focus and is now harder to find information on. Dianne Fienstien is managing various topics well and still stands in this topic and with more power. The difference in their views is not the solution but rather the extent and the fueling. Kevin is more directed solely on the residency issue believing that they should be allowed to continue their stay. Dianne also is implied to believe this when she supports the dream act and related. So they do agree in the solution in this are: "The two candidates agreed that Congress should pass immigration reform.". (mercurynews.com)She however has a more expanded view and is going against policies and supporting programs. She is more actively trying to solve the immigration problem as a whole.





Dianne FOR CALIFORNIA. "Immigration." Dianne Feinstein for California,                                                  feinsteinforca.com/issues/immigration.

OnTheIssues. "Kevin De Leon on Immigration." OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues, 19 Sept. 2018, www.ontheissues.org/International/Kevin_de_Leon_Immigration.htm.

Tolan, Casey. "Dianne Feinstein, Kevin De León Meet in Muted San Francisco Debate." The Mercury            News, 17 Oct. 2018, www.mercurynews.com/2018/10/17/dianne-feinstein-kevin-de-leon-to-                  face-off-in-san-francisco-debate/.

Blog Post #4

Media connects those listening by informing. The source can sometimes sway their listeners opinion on things by displaying them in a certain light rather than just fact.Breitbart vs CNN on the migrant caravan. CNN wants to reach for democrats while Breitbart republicans. Both have reported on the migrant caravan. Despite having differing views they both agree that the government serves a role in protecting the boarder and that laws have to be followed, where they disagree is what the people waiting to be let in should be seen as.

CNN on the issue interviewed the Mexicans themselves. They asked why not wait to be called into the country. The one they spoke with after speaking of trying to find better jobs. He also mentioned that they were also fleeing from violence, an answer the reported questioned if it was not part of the case. When asked to wait in line they feel it is necessary to move as the situation is present. This has a huge affect as it is the problem itself. They are reporting on and from the perspective of those who are the participants. The audience starts to feel sorry for the people after hearing their situation. The questioning could have had a bias but the person just told the situation itself.

While at first it would seem Breitbart is also trying to be more sympathetic further analysis shows they are reporting on the bad that some migrants have done. They interview those in the caravan, asking of their conditions and getting responses that they don't have much food nor water. In the same video they shared a recording of some they called troublemakers hoping the fence. While trying to interview the folks inside the reporter says no one wants to talk because they are planning to do wrong and escape. Like CNN they provide perspective from the inside unlike it however they also capture their own responses to the actions provided.

Blog Post #3

The topic of healthcare: who should manage health is incredibly important. I am looking at the Interest groups Families USA and Americans for Prosperity. Our current president Donald. J. trump is trying to get Obama Care which gave healthcare to all, revoked.

https://familiesusa.org/
The Liberal Interest Group: Families USA believes that healthcare should be affordable to all. This is to ease worry and assist in equality. The organization is focused, going deeper into overlooked parts of healthcare plans like dental work and racial inequalities in healthcare. They use pathos appeal by reminding how important these are "inextricably linked to the well-being, success, and future prosperity of the United States as a whole.". The limit here is that they do not address their faults. They state their mission to be easy and don't talk too much about the repercussions of failure but do look towards an ideal future.


https://americansforprosperity.org/the-issues/#healthcare
The Conservatives: Americans for Prosperity believe that healthcare cannot be for everyone since they want lower taxes and healthcare for all, would get in the way of that. Following Donald Trump they are also reporting on how Obamacare is a problem and should be met with resistance. The equality that Obamacare provides leaves the problem "most can offer only one option, which might or might not suit employees’ needs." that the plan may not be right for everyone. Other parts of the article have more of a bias from the perspective of businesses displaying the goal of little to no taxes. The issue is impacted by healthcare. They use percents for the persuasion style of logos.

Both carry with them important matters at hand Americans for Prosperity focuses more on taxes. Families USA looks at equality with the best for everyone in mind. There are the perspectives of buyer in Families USA and seller in Americans for Prosperity. I would look more brightly on Families USA's goal of healthcare for all. The work provided healthcare my dad has been relying on has mostly been for itself trying to get him to work or avoid helping him.

Blog Post #2

Political parties can link the general public to politics through advertising. The party which  people associate with has a very high affect on ideas and ideals. Which in turn determines how stances are looked at.

The Green party is the party of advocates peace and social justice. They have a very heavy faith in democracy and ecology: environment. They believe the current political system is harmful to humanity such that people can still be homeless while houses are waiting to be sold. Anti corporation to the point where they do not even believe in their democratic part as they feel it is too corporate corrupt. I chose this party as I found a similar interest in the environment.


 On their site the Arizona Green Party addressed that they are not associated nor do they endorse with Angela Green whom got her name on their ballot. They claim did so because she was allowed by law. The disassociation was stated because they are independent from "corporate capitalists". This can influence public opinion of the opinion positively by showing how dedicated they are. This exemplifies their ideal of no big business.


I have decided to study congresswoman of the 19th District of California: my own, Zoe Lofgren. "she developed the belief that we all have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment" as public service she is for clean renewable energy. She is the democratic daughter of a truck driver. With a scholarship she graduated Stanford University in 1970 with a bachelor's degree in Political Science after attending public school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLJ0z6P2iPsHwTUETwsiSguOHU7PEOtfPj&time_continue=65&v=H4m5sTfrUso The video states how Zoe feels about undocumented farmers. She states that they are doing a good job and because they are so based here with heritage should be allowed to stay. Due to their skills since she states they are "highly skilled and need to be stabilized."with at least minimum wage as they are beneficial to the country. This from the point of view of Zoe who has a felt responsibility for the environment would see farmers in a good light.