BBB

Trump Tweeted:
1.Shoplifting is a very big deal in China, as it should be (5-10 years in jail), but not to father LaVar. Should have gotten his son out during my next trip to China instead. China told them why they were released. Very ungrateful!
2.Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail!

LiAngelo Ball, along with two other players, Cody Riley and Jalen Hill, were arrested last week on suspicion of stealing sunglasses from a Louis Vuitton store while their team was in the Chinese city of Hangzhou. Trump had said he personally asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to intervene in the case.

On Wednesday, Trump issued a call for gratitude from the players. 

"Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!" he tweeted.

The President received the thanks of the players at a news conference later that day, where they also apologized for their behavior.

"To President Trump and the United States government, thank you for taking the time to intervene on our behalf. Thank you for helping us out," Riley said. LiAngelo Ball echoed his teammate's statement.

Athletic Director Dan Guerrero confirmed the trio shoplifted from three stores near their hotel Monday night. The three were identified the next morning after police searched their bags and found the stolen items.

Trump issued a follow-up message to the students on Thursday, wishing them a "great life."

UCLA players arrested in China apologize and are suspended 

"To the three UCLA basketball players I say: You're welcome, go out and give a big Thank You to President Xi Jinping of China who made your release possible and, HAVE A GREAT LIFE! Be careful, there are many pitfalls on the long and winding road of life!" he wrote on Twitter. 

LaVar Ball told ESPN he was happy to have his son back, and also seemed to downplay his alleged crime.

"As long as my boy's back here, I'm fine," he said. "I'm happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, 'They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.' I'm from L.A. I've seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses."

All three players have been suspended from the UCLA basketball team indefinitely.

1. Should the family be obligated to recognize Trump?
2. Is it appropriate for the President to comment on this topic and directly mention citizens?
3.Why do you think Trump went out of his way to get these kids out of China? Do you think there were any other reasons other than the obvious?

White House, GOP celebrate passing sweeping tax bill

White House, GOP celebrate passing sweeping tax bill

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/20/politics/house-senate-trump-tax-bill/index.html

Washington (CNN)Republican lawmakers joined President Donald Trump on Wednesday afternoon to celebrate their largest legislative achievement of 2017, in a public ceremony spotlighting the most sweeping overhaul of the US tax system in more than 30 years.

"It's always a lot of fun when you win," Trump said at the ceremony on the White House lawn, after thanking congressional leaders including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan.

A fractured GOP unified to pass a landmark tax plan: Here's how it came together

Hailing passage of the GOP's tax plan and surrounded by dozens of prominent Republicans in Congress, Trump said the package would fulfill his core campaign promise.

"It's really — it's simple. When you think you haven't heard this expression -- we are making America great again," he said, also ticking through a long list of congressional Republicans who helped guide the bill through Congress, adhering to an ambitious timeline that many considered laughable when it was unveiled just a few months ago.

Among those Republicans not at the White House on Wednesday: Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who voted for the Senate tax bill on Wednesday morning, but also acknowledged publicly that health care subsidies she wanted as part of a government spending deal will not be included before Congress leaves for its holiday break.

close dialog

Receive Fareed Zakaria's Global Analysis

including insights and must-reads of world news

By subscribing you agree to our

privacy policy.

The bill passed the House a second time earlier Wednesday 224-201, with no Democrats backing it and a dozen House GOP members voting no. The measure now heads to the Trump's desk for his signature.

The President will not actually sign the bill Wednesday, however. The bill will not be "enrolled" yet -- the formal term for when a final copy of a bill passed by both houses of Congress is sent to the White House.

A fractured GOP unified to pass a landmark tax plan: Here's how it came together

In a vote in the early Wednesday morning hours, the Senate approved the final version of the first overhaul of the US tax code in more than 30 years. The bill passed along party lines, 51-48, with the final result announced by Vice President Mike Pence, who presided over the vote. The House passed the bill earlier Tuesday, but technical changes were made to it in the Senate.

Questions:

1: Is the tax bill actually going to help the economy?

2. What do you predict will be the fallout from the tax bill for trumps administration?

3. Are you surprised that there were not more Republicans that flipped on the bill?

A Single Vote Keeps Virginia's 94th House Race Going

Article from CNN

One vote keeps the Virginia House election between Democrat Shelly A. Simonds and Republican David E. Yancey going. At first Simonds appeared to have defeated her Republican opponent by one vote. However, after a recount it was discovered that a ballot that had initially been marked for Democrat Shelly Simonds had been crossed out and marked for Republican David Yancey. The panel ruled that this vote should go to the Republican. After this decision the race has been left as a tie with both candidates having 11,608 votes. According to the law, the winner will now be decided through a random draw. However, the attorney for the Virginia House Democrats, Marc Elias, is criticizing the panel's decision. He states that, "Today's decision by the court was wrong, and Delegate-elect Shelly Simonds should have been certified the winner, we are currently assessing all legal options before us as we fight for a just result." This election is essential because it could lead to either an equal amount of seats for Democrats or allow the Republicans to gain control of the House. Finally, D
emocrats gained on Republicans after unseating more than a dozen and putting the control of the House in play.

1. Do you think that Republicans will continue to lose more seats in the House?

2. How will it change the House if Simonds wins and their is equal seats between Democrats and Republicans?

3. What are your thoughts on the election winner being chosen randomly by draw?

Once a Long Shot, Democrat Doug Jones Wins Alabama Senate Race

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/us/politics/alabama-senate-race-winner.html

After a long and tumultuous race that involved multiple sex scandals, Democrat Doug Jones has won the Senate seat in Alabama.

This win by Democrats shortens the Republican Senate majority to only one seat and gives reason to believe that the Democrats have an actual shot at taking over the Senate next year.

Opponent Roy Moore's campaign had been notorious across the U.S. after The Washington Post uncovered that when he was a prosecutor in his 30s, he had made sexual advances towards four teenage girls, one of whom was 14 at the time. Despite these claims, President Trump feverish campaigned for Roy Moore to win, and because of this, he was projected to win.

However, Doug Jones was able to win the majority vote. He did so by targeting African-Americans and educated white voters who were becoming increasingly wary of the Republican Party and Roy Moore. Doug Jones' past is also seen in a far more positive light than Roy Moore's past since Jones is best known for prosecuting two KKK members who were responsible for the bombing of an Alabama Baptist Church. His traditional Democratic views also helped him, since he was seen as more of a Centrist than Roy Moore.

Moore's loss will have a serious impact on many Washington Republican's who are already having trouble garnering support to enact new legislation by Congress. Moore's large and expensive campaign that resulted in defeat may deter new Republicans from running for Congress, and it appears that no matter how hard they may try, they'd still lose. However, some Republican party members were relieved to have Moore lose due to the fact that he would have possibly had a court hearing and become indicted on his charges, which would have ultimately been a massive blow to Republicans.

Jones' win is a victory for all Democrats and suggests a possibly bright future for the Democratic Party as a whole.


1) Now that Doug Jones is in office, do you think the Democrats have an opportunity to take over the Senate? Why or why not?

2) Did Doug Jones' past influence more voters than Roy Moore's past? Why or why not?

3) Should Roy Moore be prosecuted for the multiple sexual assault cases against him? If he was elected, do you think he would have been prosecuted? Why?

Rising U.S. Protectionism May Hurt China's Economy And Begin A Trade War

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahsu/2017/09/12/rising-u-s-protectionism-may-hurt-chinas-economy-and-begin-a-trade-war/#30172801a326 

Even though Trump campaigned on a 45% protectionist tariff against China, this has not come to fruition yet. The idea of protectionism would have a very negative affect on China's exports and possibly the United States. According to experts, tariffs on Chinese imports will almost double. Exports, which account for 20% of China's gross domestic product, would be negatively impacted if the U.S. were to impose these protectionist tariffs against items such as steel, aluminum, solar cells, and other goods. 

Trump has requested to look into the national security implications of China expanding their steel and aluminum trade with the U.S. The implications of China supplying the majority of the steel and aluminum used in the U.S. would weaken America's ability to engage in a military conflict if we were unable to quickly manufacture our own on a domestic basis.Trump is also concerned about the impact of China's trade policies on intellectual property. If it is determined that this is harming U.S. interests, Trump can implement a trade sanction to solve this through section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act.

Obviously, the President of China, Xi Jinping expressed his dislike for the protectionist policies being discussed. He stated “any attempt to cut off the flow of capital, technologies, products, industries and people between economies, and channel the waters in the ocean back into isolated lakes and creeks is simply not possible... Pursuing protectionism is like locking oneself in a dark room. While wind and rain may be kept outside, that dark room will also block light and air." If this comes to actualization, many are predicting a trade war between the two countries.

China has been opening up some industries as free trade zones (FTZ's). Not only will this hurt China, but if China decided to institute retaliatory tariffs against U.S. exports, this could also have a major negative impact on the U.S.'s exporting industry.

1. What do you think about the national security implications of the steel industry and tariffs?

2. Do you feel Trump is acting in the best interest of the U.S. in threatening to impose tariffs?

3. Can trade wars be avoided?

History of Abortion Debate

'Roe v. Wade' Turns 40, But Abortion Debate Is Even Older https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/01/22/169637288/roe-v-wade-turns-40-but-abortion-debate-is-even-older

Supreme Court weighs challenge to California's abortion disclosure law: Does it violate free speech?

http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-abortion-california-201710-story.html

Although abortion became a major divisive issue in modern politics by Roe v. Wade in 1973, the beginning of the issue dates back to the last 50's. At first, some non-religious groups fought for overturning the laws that banned abortion.

While other political issues are distant from religion of the voters, the abortion issue is deeply associated with some divisions within Christianity. However, before the 70's, there were relatively insignificant participation of religious groups in this issue compared to several years later in the history of the debate. The beginning of the participation of Catholic groups might not seem as their authentic decision, but rather it was a strategy of Patrick Buchanan, one of the aides of Richard Nixon, to "lure Northern Catholic voters, who had traditionally voted Democratic" to re-elect Nixon for his second term. His strategy worked; pro-life campaign of Nixon successfully attracted Northern Catholic votes and defeated his opponent, McGovern.

Regardless of Nixon's campaign, what made the issue of abortion nationwide is the landmark case of Roe v. Wade, which set up the precedent for future abortion cases and grassroots movements in both sides of the debate. The Supreme Court decision upheld the right of privacy under Due Process Clause, that women have their own right to abort; however, the effect of the result was limited to federal scope as usual. States held their own discretion on regulation only after the first trimester due to the decision.

The decision made in Roe v. Wade was challenged in 1992 with another landmark case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Supreme Court then altered the criteria of states' discretion with the mention of "undue burden" of women; states could regulate abortion after the point of viability, regardless of the time spent in pregnancy.

Specifically, California is seeking for less strict regulation and improved social services to reduce the abortion rate, establishing "public programs that provide immediate free or low cost access to comprehensive family planning services ... for eligible women".

1. What are your thoughts on general religious involvement in  the issue of abortion?

2.  What do you think is the most efficient way to reduce the nationwide abortion rate, including legal regulation?

3. Do you think using religious sentiments in politics a justified strategy in political campaign?

Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Begins Arguments

Background-http://www.cpr.org/news/story/colorado-s-masterpiece-cakeshop-case-winds-toward-a-decision-with-scotus-arguments

Main sources- http://prospect.org/article/baking-chaos-masterpiece-cakeshop-argument-misses-mark

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2017/12/05/masterpiece-cake-supreme-court-justices/

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop V Colorado. Back in 2012, a gay couple came into the shop and tried to order a wedding cake. Baker Jack Phillips told the couple that they could buy anything else premade in his store, but he was not going to use his artistic ability to design something he did not believe in. The couple complained to the CCRV (Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and after a couple rulings that the baker was in violation of the Colorado Civil Rights Laws, the case has been appealed to the supreme court.

Within the hearing, Colorado’s laws on Freedom of expression comes face to face with it’s anti discriminatory laws as the big question is posed, is he discriminating based on sexual-orientation or is he trying to invoke his own first amendment rights entailing freedom of religion. As it is currently a grey area, many of the Justices are cautious about how to rule in this case. As observed by the questions being asked by the Justices, a key concern is as to what precedent the outcome would create. Would siding with the Baker open the door to more severe discriminatory violations? Would ruling against the baker highlight the idea of forcing one to go against their fundamental beliefs?

In the middle of all this, the expected key vote is Anthony Kennedy. Many are curious as to how he will rule as well as he has been a general supporter of gay rights yet also a protector of freedom of speech. In the courtroom however, he revealed potential support for Phillips when questioning whether the bakers beliefs were being respected by the CCRV. The court is expected to split 4 and 4 with Kennedy serving as the swing vote. A decision however will likely take months.

1. In the article it states that Baker Jack Phillips claimed, “his cakes are expressive works of art, and that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would force him to send a message of approval of same-sex marriage, which he rejects for religious reasons. He’s willing to sell premade cakes to same-sex couples, but not wedding cakes made to order.” - Do you feel that this is a case of discrimination or of protecting first amendment freedoms?
2. Based on his comments, which way do you think Kennedy will swing?
3. No matter what precedent the outcome establishes, how much of an impact do you think this case overall will have had?