54 Comments
Jacqueline Fonseca
2/9/2016 07:02:17 am
The two articles very well point out then flaws of each Republican candidates and why they shouldn't be the one to win the primaries. In both articles they clearly point out the flaw of Donald Trump and how he blames Americans issues on immigrants and minorities. They also point out that he doesn't have any experience in politics before this. They don't just narrow it to what is wrong with Donald Trump but with each candidate.
Reply
Barter
2/9/2016 07:16:47 am
3678 bonus points for going first!
Reply
Lupita
2/9/2016 05:54:54 pm
hi bart. can this count as my second comment.
Nina Almase
2/9/2016 06:12:14 pm
I deserve those 3,678 points... You know why... Cough cough.... BROWN BREADS
Barter
2/10/2016 07:18:23 am
Nope.
Yvette Gagum
2/9/2016 09:56:27 am
I am amazed at how the articles both talk about how Trump is screwing everyone over yet people still support him despite the way he makes his claims about policies.
Reply
Kynzie
2/9/2016 12:41:55 pm
I agree with Yvette and Jackie. Trump's ideas are very far from what the goal of the Republican Party is.
Nina Almase
2/9/2016 06:33:20 pm
I agree with you Yvette. I think that because Trump is such a demogogue spewing hatred, he's easy to follow and agree with. Many people are just following what's in the media, and Trump is the star on every Republican story. 2/9/2016 08:03:49 pm
Building a wall and the people go nuts, as Trump has said. Well, I think it is just a lot of negative connotation surrounding politicians, people wanting change without thought of all the polarization, and white people believing that things aren't equal and that they are now the minority. It is amazing how much support he is gaining, though. Like, it is bad for the republicans as people are seeing how much support someone like Trump is getting, but scary that Trump is near-if-not the top (I haven't looked at the polls recently).
Jacob Acuña
2/9/2016 09:38:13 pm
For real! However, all his fear-mongering is catching up to him and hopefully that'll put a stump in his campaigning.
Andie stockwell
2/10/2016 06:57:32 am
Trumps ideals are pretty far out there. What a good.
Deanna Strayer
2/10/2016 09:24:31 am
Same! He has such a way with people and getting them excited that they realize that he doesn't even have a stance on a ton of important issues and the stances he does have he pulls out of nowhere.
Lupita
2/9/2016 05:54:25 pm
I like your comment because that's all I got out of the articles as well, Trump is crazy. I mean I knew he was before but I enjoy reading idiotic things Trump says. However I think the New York Times article had good points against each candidate (except Kasich), Cruz's points are nearly as bad as trumps. I liked that article because it wasn't only focused on Trump's flaws, unlike the second one.
Reply
Imelda
2/9/2016 07:00:05 pm
In addition to pointing out why certain candidates should not win, both articles also pick candidates that they think should win.
Reply
Jacob Acuña
2/9/2016 09:39:09 pm
Which appear to be all moderate in their ideologies.
Yvette Gagum
2/9/2016 09:50:40 am
So the first article from the New York Times starts with the Iowa caucus and explains what republican candidates have to do in order to win and what they have done in the past before in debates and such (since this was written before the caucus). It's interesting to see how the article predicts what each main candidate has to do in order to win. The other article, from the Washington Post, mainly compares how organized the race for nomination is from the Democratic party to the Republican. The democratic candidates are simply trying to pull the left side of the party for support as well as the middle of the party, while the article calls the Republican race a "full-scale riot", saying candidates like Trump are pulling most of the voters on the right while other candidates have to run to catch up and get votes for themselves. It seems like everyone is saying the same old story about Democrats and Republicans.
Reply
Robert Medina
2/9/2016 11:21:49 am
i think that you are partially correct, in that the articles are both saying the same thing, but there is something beyond that. Yes, they both inherently hate Trump and Democrats, however the why reason is needed. In the Kasich Article they hate Trump because he is an extremist about everything. However in the second article, he hates Trump because he is so uninformed and takes views which are comparable with a communist. The other does not offer a candidate choice in the form of Kasich because he could very well be too moderate whereas Cruz, and the others are slightly less electable (nationally) because they are more extreme on issues and are the louder voices. The first author notices that the noises are drowning out other wise great contenders for the Republican Nomination and all they need is a louder voice. One author is more extreme and hates people while another offers a greater means of solving a problem that is plaguing the Republican Party.
Reply
Kynzie W
2/9/2016 12:44:23 pm
I agree with Robert. Trump is considered less electable because of his views and he probably wouldn't be able to pull enough middle votes but then the moderates may not be able to pull through the primaries.
Robert Medina
2/9/2016 11:16:43 am
I have found that the first article which addresses the plausibility of John Kasich as the Republican Party candidate addresses real flaws of the various competitors. The people at the very top of the republican party are people who are saying whatever is needed to win, and includes their inability to touch on real topics rather than public-media attention topics. He isn't an extremist republican who is barring all immigrants from Syria to Mexico, he is working on moderate practices however, he shouldn't be confused with a moderate as he has in the years of experience as a representative and governor, held firm to many republican ideals and seems like a cool-headed choice for the party.
Reply
Imelda
2/9/2016 06:57:25 pm
I agree that the article identifies the main issue with the front running candidates, Trump and Cruz, as their lack of concern with policy and heavy concern with being in the media.
Reply
Jeremy Bessett
2/10/2016 07:15:21 am
Robert Krauthammer never says in his article that he supports Cruz... I got the vibe that he did not like Cruz, and he suggested Marco Rubio as the party nomination because he felt that he is the closest in line with the conservative ideals, but is modern enough to get new voters.
Reply
Barter
2/10/2016 07:56:51 am
Seems the most valid assessment of the 2nd article
Kynzie W
2/9/2016 12:38:46 pm
The first article greatly focuses on the downsides to the top two leading republican candidates. Trump for lack of experience and Cruz for individual ambition. The second article focuses on the fact that Trump's views may not even be entirely conservative while Cruz's are. Both of these articles highlight the downsides that the Republican Party may face if either of these two are nominated. I think that these articles bring up valuable points that people need to consider.
Reply
Lupita
2/9/2016 05:58:01 pm
I agree with you, the articles bring up valid points that should be considered for each candidate, not just Trump. One article is against Cruz while the other is sort of for him, having these two counter perspective allows us to form a more rounded opinion of Cruz at least. (He still sucks tho)
Reply
Lupita
2/9/2016 05:48:07 pm
I should get 3678 extra points for doing it this time... The New York times article was firing shots at all the republican candidates, was dirtier than "Back to Back" (I know you guys won't get the reference but it's okay). Since this article is bias it's hard to form an opinion on the candidates based off it but they made Kasich seem really good compared to the other idiots running, BUT THEN AGAIN THE SOURCE IS BIASED. The points made against the candidates are, however, good points that should be considered when discussing the republican primaries. I think the second article is saying that neither front runners of the republican primaries are suited for the House's conservative agenda. Also the quotes in both articles from Trump are insane and we really cannot let this man win anything.
Reply
Nina Almase
2/9/2016 06:36:27 pm
IS THIS A WORLD TOUR OR YOUR GIRLS TOUR
Reply
Payson
2/9/2016 10:11:32 pm
That is a good point about the bias. The articles do make Kasich seem like a more agreeable candidate, but I'm sure you could find lots of dirt on him too. Therefore these articles can't really be something you base your whole opinion on. However all of the scrutiny of the candidates is reasonably based. Lastly, can I also have 3678 extra credit points because I think I deserve them?
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/10/2016 05:52:09 am
I think the bias was really out there and almost painful to read, and for sure didn't give a complete picture of the various candidates. I think it really took away from what they were saying about their preferred candidates because you couldn't believe what you were reading!
Reply
Jerbear
2/10/2016 07:20:19 am
I think everyone needs to realize these were opinion articles and in turn are always going to be full of bias, even with the bias i think that is is very clear as to what each person was saying. NO TRUMP or CRUZ and in the latter NO BERNIE, TRUMP, OR CRUZ. Each article promoted a more moderate candidate that would be a much more electable Nominee.
Barter
2/10/2016 07:58:38 am
They are both editorials, so yes they have a bias. On is from a Left leaning source and the other a Right.
Reply
Nina Almase
2/9/2016 06:37:41 pm
I agree with what you say on Trump. Personally I think all of the Republicans kind of suck, but I think I am biased.
Reply
2/9/2016 07:58:11 pm
Biased, yes. But everyone has their own bias, but Trump is really bad. I mean I knew of "building a wall" and his immigration plan (I am not entirely sure, but I believe I read somewhere it was called operation wetback, but then again that could be just a smear thing), but tariffs at 35 and 45%!? That is pretty garbage, i'd say.
Reply
Imelda
2/9/2016 06:52:38 pm
Both articles criticize Republican presidential candidates, mostly Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. The articles recognize how conservative all of the Republican candidates seem to be. They also both pick one candidate to favor.
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/10/2016 05:56:54 am
I agree - I think the second article did a good job of recognizing the stress Republicans have placed on conservatism and how it has begun to hurt the party overall. The key to their success doesn't have to come from extremists.
Reply
2/9/2016 07:55:35 pm
So, the basic comparison is that both articles talk about the GOP debate, and how extreme candidate, like Trump and Cruz, are far right and both are essentially bad. Trump being an ignorant fellow on everything from foreign affairs, immigration, and trade and Cruz being so far right that everything that doesn't match his beliefs is not a conservative etc. That is all they have in common, however, as the viewpoints are radically different (NY Times editorial is pretty democratic while Washington Post editorial is republican) and while one side (NY Times) says the republicans need someone like Kasich to be main runner if they want a chance at winning office while the other (Post) believe that Rubio is as great as Reagan. That is what I got from it at least.
Reply
Yvette Gagum
2/9/2016 08:08:09 pm
Well in addition to that, the articles talk about the Democratic race briefly to comment that Bernie is almost acting like Trump (I know, shocking) in how left he is and how he has a struggle to pull voters from the middle side of the party as well as independent voters, as well as how Hilary is struggling to show that she could prove to be as left as Bernie is while still coensiding with middle democratic views (which is one of the main reasons why she says "progressive" in about every sentence she says on national TV).
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
2/10/2016 07:05:15 am
I find it interesting that the second article talks about Bernie and his socialist views in such a negative and incredulous tone. I think this, in particular, highlights the conservative bias from this author. It is true that the leading candidates are pulling from the far sides of the spectrum.
Robert Medina
2/10/2016 03:50:08 am
I think that both articles can somewhat be viewed as being similar. However the biasedness of both authors (the second article being pulled more towards further conservatism and the second being pulled towards the middle) aim at showing that the Republican Party needs a better strategy in order to win this election. This leads me to believe, is Kasich a good choice or is he too moderate for several conservative voters, and does he have enough of a recognition to gain further momentum in other states where there is more diversity?
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
2/10/2016 08:09:05 am
I would agree they are both biased, but that's the point of editorials, to give ones opinion. In any case I think Kasich can definitely have a good chance of he starts winning states and utilizing the media to gain numbers like trump has been
Jacob Acuña
2/9/2016 09:46:35 pm
Both articles, in my opinion, leaned to the right as they both followed the GOP side of the presidential candidates. And in both articles, the authors denounced the demagoguery of Trump and, sadly, even Bernie's socialistic platform. They seem to want a moderate president.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
2/10/2016 06:40:16 am
I definitely agree that both articles are biased in regard to Republicans. They both completley right off the Democratic candidates as ridiculous or insane. Although they do bash some Republicans those are only the ones who they don't truly even see as Republicans. They want a "true conservative" on office.
Reply
Ryan Schwarz
2/10/2016 08:07:09 am
Well yes of course they do Jacob they are writing editorials for a reason, they're are always more than one way to slice an apple. In reality both sides are calling for reform, very real reform and mainly of similar things, the only difference being the result of that reform
Reply
Payson Harris
2/9/2016 10:03:07 pm
Both articles focus on bashing Trump and Cruz and favoring a different republican. The difference between the two lies in who the main other candidate they support is and the manner and degree which the candidates are criticized. The first article said that Rubio was also a bad choice and that Kristie was the only good choice for president while the second article favored Rubio. Also the first article was ferocious and attacked Trump and Cruz violently, while the second article more casually pointed out their flaws. Lastly, the second article focused a little more on calling Sanders an idiot.
Reply
Laura Jackson
2/10/2016 05:45:35 am
Both articles focus on the various Democratic and Republican candidates running in the 2016 presidential primaries, and each names their own ideal administration. The first article points out the extremes that have appeared - on the right, specifically, during the primaries. Candidates like Trump and Cruz dominate the political playfield with their radical policies and sensationalism; the article says these are exactly that the Republicans do not need. Instead, individuals such as John Kasich would be the optimal nominee. While not a moderate by any means, Kasich possesses a political calm many of his colleagues lack. Less aggressive and more open to bipartisanship, the author argues that he would garner appeal from both the right and a majority of independents. The second article argues for a different candidate - Rubio. The second piece also focus' on the political downfalls of the Republican runners, and even takes a jab at the left (Sanders). However, the second makes the case that policy is more important than political alignment. Because Rubio has thought out policies, the article argues, it doesn't matter if he lacks moderate appeal.
Reply
Deanna Strayer
2/10/2016 06:37:30 am
The first article talks about the downsides of the Republican candidates and feels like a pretty Democratic writer. The second explores how Trump is pretty extreme but not necessarily in a Republican way. They both try to talk about who the best/most viable candidate it for the Republican party. The articles differ in that Kasich and Rubio are the two different ideal candidates for the articles. Both articles are simply opinion pieces that are clearly biased.
Reply
Andie Stockwell
2/10/2016 06:49:32 am
Both of the articles bashed on republican candidates, and the bias was a bit overwhelming. One of the articles did end up saying Kasich would be an appropriate candidate for the republican platform.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
2/10/2016 07:00:10 am
While it is true that they are both obviously biased, they do present quotes from the candidates and facts about their campaign platforms. They do however, present it in a biased way.
Reply
Madeline Arbogast
2/10/2016 06:57:42 am
The first Article comes from a liberal news, NYTimes, and thus says that the two front runners, Trump and Cruz, are too radical. It points out the extremes the candidates are willing to go to in their opinions to get the people who are angry to vote for them. The article then points to a new candidate, Kasich, who is "not moderate" but who can put the Obama talk away and discuss how thing should work when he is in office.
Reply
Jeremy Bessett
2/10/2016 07:12:03 am
I think it to be very telling that both sides of the isle are bashing on Cruz and Trump. Both of them are unappreciated by their own party and by the Democrats obviously...
Reply
Ryan T. Swaz
2/10/2016 08:03:53 am
Both articles seem to have the goal of disenchanting its readers with Republican front-runners Cruz and Trump, however it seems to me such a goal is pointless; if you are reading these articles you're probably not to in love with Trump or Cruz in the first place. The difference between the articles however, is evident. The first article focuses on the negatives of almost all the Republican candidates while the second article takes a real stand on the candidates, or type of candidate, he believes would do best for our country.
Reply
Barter
2/10/2016 09:00:54 am
Soooo, lets assume that other people read these comments. Not just us.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2020
Categories |