Twitter can be a great resource for sharing news or entertainment with almost anyone. It seems like everyone has a Twitter account nowadays too. You can search for and find almost anyone who is even mildly famous on there, including, unfortunately, Donald Trump. Most everyone knows that Trump has a certain amount of Twitter infamy. He is known for short, poorly worded tweets that often attack people and are often posted at three in the morning when most people are conveniently not up to defend themselves. And Trump has made yet another mistake on Twitter yet again.
Trump retweeted a gif that makes it look like he is hitting Hilary Clinton with a golf ball. While the gif may be in poor taste, it is ultimately harmless. Unless, of course, you are the guy hitting Clinton in the video and also the president of United States. And you have also threatened (with federal investigation and jail time) the person you appear to be hitting. And in general, you are known for having a great dislike of that person and have said a number of “nasty” things about her. This man is supposed to be the president of our country, not a child incapable of any form of critical thinking.
Trump is our president, whether we like it or not, and therefore he is held to a higher standard. Arguably, the highest of standards. But here he is back at it again with petty, childish tweets against Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, we have half the country of fire, literally, two massive hurricane relief efforts going on, and rising tension with North Korea. Forgive me if I feel like the president has better things to do than retaliate against someone who released a book recently criticizing him. This would not be quite as big of a deal if Trump was not known for going on Twitter rants against anyone he dislikes and obsessing about it. As president, his attention needs to be elsewhere, and this does not bode well.
Donald Trump will be the 45th president of the United States of America. In a shocking evening filled with suspense, Trump was able to live up to his lofty goal of debunking the theory of the Democratic “blue wall” consisting of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin and flip them into the Republican’s column. With these three states, plus other traditional swing states, such as North Carolina and Florida, Trump was able to push beyond the 270 electoral votes needed to become President-elect, even though he lost the popular vote.
Many seem to be scratching their heads wondering why and how this ever happened but in reality, we all should have seen this coming. Vice President Joe Biden recently discussed with Chris Matthews on MSNBC about how the Democratic Party had lost touch with the blue-collar voters from around the country. This group, which still makes up a large portion of the electorate, found comfort in President-elect Trump’s policies surrounding the economy, found hope in the prospect of jobs returning and admired his simple understanding of the working-class voter.
As President-Elect Trump begins his transition to power, Democrats face a critical moment in history. With the loss of such a large portion of its base to the GOP, Democrats will face an uphill battle as they try to broaden their appeal and win back one or both chambers of the House of Representatives in 2018. Until then, the party of Reagan holds all branches of the federal government, governorships, and statehouses across the country.
Marco Rubio, former Republican candidate, may have dropped out of the presidential race after losing to Donald Trump in the Florida Primary, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t hilarious arguments and fights left behind to peruse. Some even point to the following scenario as anexplanation for what went wrong in his candidacy.
Shortly before Super Tuesday, Marco Rubio decided to attempt to stump Donald Trump, by mocking his hair and spray tan, then criticizing the size of Trump’s hands. Trump, the Republican front runner, reassured voters that there was no problem with the size of his hands, or any other part of his body. This has become one of the most famous debate moments thus far in this campaign.
Presidential hopeful and former presidential hopeful, were citing back to urban legend, that says that you can assume a man’s penis size after looking at his hands, feet, or by how tall he is.
If a man’s hands are small, so is the size of his penis. This isn’t the first time the size of Trump’s hands or his anatomy has been brought into the media.Ever since a 1988 Spy magazine article branded him a “short-fingered vulgarian”, Trump has been excessively sensitive about the size of his hands and penis.
Science hasn’t come to a consensus on the small matter, but there may be some truth to the small hands, small penis myth. However, the size of a man’s penis doesn’t come down to his hands, but down to a finger.
If a man’s ring finger islonger in relation to his index finger, there’s a possibility that his penis is a tad longer than an average penis. This is only a difference of centimeters.
For most researchers to determine this, they evaluated a man’s overall measurements. They assessed his height and weight, and additionally measured his fingers and his erect penis. One team of researchers evenstudied this theory in rats.
However, what might actually determine the length of an adult man’s penis relies on how much of the hormone androgen he was introduced to while in his mother’s womb.
To demonstrate this theory,scientists tested on rats. The proportions of their finger length resemble those of humans. Scientists first blocked a mother’s androgen level during the rat’s development cycle. When the rat became an adult, his penis size was smaller than the average penis size. Another study similar to the latter, found that the rats that are introduced to more androgen during thedevelopment cycle had ring fingers that were slightly longer than average.
**Disclaimer- This article was written before Mr. Trump’s visit to Radford University **
Donald Trump is coming to Radford on Monday and you could say that I’m just a little bit excited. Although Radford was his last choice, it’s still makes us here at little RU feel very special.
With the primary on Tuesday, it makes sense as to why Mr. Trump would want to come down here. It was a smart choice for him to come, with Radford being surrounded by towns that are largely populated with right wing conservatives.
Although Trump used to be a publically known democrat, his run as a republican candidate has done nothing but great things for the businessman. He seems right at home with his extreme stance on immigration and nationalistic views, however new they may be.
I’ve never been to see a presidential candidate speak before so I’m very excited to see what topics Trump covers as well as how the crowd reacts to him. I know, from the people that I’ve talked to, that most people here at Radford don’t particularly like him.
With most college campuses being liberal, it’s understandable as to why the students here don’t appreciate or respect his viewpoint. I can expect there to be a multitude of protests occurring, hopefully non-violent ones, expressing their distaste for Trump’s blatant sexism and racism. However, I, like some other of my friends, are going because we want to see what he has to say, how he reacts to protesters, and how he chooses to talk to the younger generations, the ones who have a big impact on the election.
With Trump being the big deal that he is, I’m excited to see all of the secret service agents surround him, the dramatic precautions that happen when protecting a man with so much money and power. It’ll be interesting to see whether or not he decides to make a pitstop at Starbucks or the Radford theatre.
Whether or not you agree with Trump or his views, this opportunity could potentially be a once in a lifetime event, and should be taken advantage of.
The primary elections, which will decide the Democratic nominee for president, are only 4 and a half months away. Hillary Clinton still remains the frontrunner, even with the surge from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Among women, Clinton’s lead over Sanders is even bigger. But it shouldn’t be.
I’m not one of those people that are saying that Clinton is polling well among women simply because she is a woman. Female voters, for the most part, truly believe that Hillary Clinton will represent the female demographic the best. That’s the problem,
because the biggest champion of women’s issues is not Hillary Clinton, it’s Bernie Sanders.
Let’s start with the issues that Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders agree on:
Abortion and Planned Parenthood
Clinton and Sanders have both consistently supported leaving a woman’s reproductive rights between a woman and her doctor, and both have received 100% ratings from NARAL Pro Choice America. They both have criticized republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood by 500 million dollars.
Gender Pay Gap
Both candidates have expressed outrage at the fact that women make disproportionately less than their male counterparts. Sanders also voted for the Paycheck Fairness Act, an act that makes sure that pay discrepancies are based on job performance and credentials, rather than just gender.
Sanders and Clinton are both staunch advocates for instituting paid family leave. Clinton stated that “It’s outrageous that America is the only country in the developed world that doesn’t guarantee paid leave.” Sanders points out Scandinavian countries as examples of successful implementation for paid family leave.
Now let’s look at the issues that proves Bernie Sanders to be the optimal choice when it comes to women’s issues:
This is an important issue. The majority of minimum wage workers are no longer teenagers, they’re adults. And a majority of those adults earning the minimum wage are women, many of them single mothers supporting their children. Sanders and Clinton both support raising the minimum wage, but Sanders supports raising it to 15 dollars an hour. That’s much higher than the historical high level in 1968 of $10.78 an hour (adjusted for inflation). This boost in pay will lift thousands of single mothers earning low wages out of poverty, enabling them to better provide for their families.
Both candidates have supported Obamacare, which has helped millions of women across this country. But Bernie Sanders doesn’t think the law goes far enough. As an alternative, he advocates for a single payer health care system, in which medical costs are publically financed and every American is covered. Hillary Clinton made it very clear in the first debate that she would not support a single payer system.
This is important, because even after the implementation of Obamacare, women have been discriminated in the hiring process simply because their health care costs are naturally more expensive than the health care costs of men. And if women do end up getting the job, they’re sometimes forced into taking a cut from their salaries in order to cover their medical benefits. This contributes to the gender pay gap.
Under a single payer system, medical costs would be covered by the government, which will lift the burden from businesses, and hiring decisions will be based on qualifications of the worker, not potential healthcare costs.
This presidential election is a very crucial one. Each party has a very different direction that they want to take this country, and within those parties are also candidates with differing views.
Democrats already know that they don’t want a Republican in the White House for the next four years. But it’s also important that Democrats elect a candidate that has the best interest of every American: Men, women, children, seniors, and every demographic. And after taking a look at both platforms of both candidates, the choice is clear.
When it comes to women’s issues, Bernie Sanders is the superior choice for the Democratic nomination for President of The United States.
It’s a cliche at this point; you’ve heard it dozens of times. The fatal moment when some well-meaning individual asks, “so what are you in school for?”
Tell them you’re majoring in english, history, fine arts, or a myriad of other liberal arts programs and you’re inevitably hit with the painfully overused “oh- so you’re going to be a Barista then?”
The notion that some fields don’t matter or are utterly pointless is a concept that’s proliferated through societies around the world over the past few years.
With the importance of STEM subjects, an acronym for the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and math, politicians and policymakers across the nation have been criticizing humanities majors.
It’s not just Governor Scott either. In 2014 President Obama himself said in one of his speeches, “I promise you, folks can make a lot more, potentially, with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.”
To be a humanities major is to face contemptuous glances and long-winded diatribes about narrow job prospects and minuscule salaries. Little do the nay-sayers know is that 74% of employers would hire a liberal arts major, and that by the age of 56, those with degrees outside of the pre-professional sphere are likely to earn $2,000 more per year.
Sadly these statistics don’t resound on a global level.
Most recently, this September Japan’s Minister of Education, Hakuban Shimomura publicly urged the nation’s universities and colleges to downsize or completely shut down their humanities and social science departments. His logic being that such subjects did little to benefit society.
So far 43 universities have complied with his request, and no longer have programs ranging from economics to pre law to social work. Our current world view is catastrophic for the long term health of society.
With vital disciplines being stifled everyday the world loses a wealth of knowledge, and incredibly talented individuals are denied access to fields they can thrive in. Instead, people are being forced into professions they don’t enjoy, negatively affecting the quality of the work being produced and their mental well being.
A world full of engineers and no therapists is as doomed to fail as a civilization with only farmers and no doctors.
Let them joke about the geography majors, critique the political science experts, and deride linguists.
Let them try to tip the equilibrium under the false gospel that the study of human quirks is of less value than the study of machines.
We’ll take the tacky Starbucks jibes with a smile, knowing that without us, the world would be a much less interesting place.
The 2016 race for President is heating up. We’ve had a number of individuals campaigning in the primaries but a select few have been pulling great numbers in polls taken across the country. Though no poll is truly reliable in terms of who will win the primary, they’re an excellent estimate of what’s to come, and what we’re seeing in CNN’s 2016 Presidential election article is that even though the election itself is still over a year away, we’re quickly coming to a head in terms of which candidate will be representing which party. According to this article by CNN, published in mid-August, despite the many candidates that could very well produce a split-vote specifically in the Republican party, there are a few in particular that have been gaining distinct favor, one of them being the infamous billionaire businessman, Donald Trump.
There is no doubt that Trump is popular — though, popularity doesn’t necessarily equate to well-liked — as his poll results show amazing numbers for someone in such a circumstance as going up against fifteen other candidates in the major polls alone. You have to hand it to him; the man has charisma. But does his enthusiasm really do any good when coming from such a prejudiced being?
Immigration is a hot-button issue that many love to give their opinion on, but that few people truly understand. It’s difficult to see all sides of the situation, especially when you can only experience life as an immigrant by actually trying to immigrate.
Each occurrence is one’s own, and there’s no way to really replicate what so many go through every day in an attempt to find safety and solace here in the “Land of the Free”. Whether it’s right or wrong, that’s totally up for debate. What’s not up for debate, however, is the blatant racism that clouds the reasons of some of those who are radically opposed to open borders.
During Trump’s presidential announcement back in early June, it became clear to many just how prejudiced this man is. During his 45 minute speech, he was slow to think and quick to spew nonsense. Rather than giving reasons as to why it would impact the U.S. economically or culturally, he decided to hit the nail on the head and explain, by painting with a broad stroke to say the least, just how terrible Mexican people as a whole were.
“The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems. [Applause] Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”
Some not being enough, apparently. Despite the obvious positive effects of an influx of diversity, and despite the obvious problems of drug abuse, crime, and rape right here on the home-front, Trump seems to make his beliefs quite clear.
Whether you agree with immigration or not, and whether you support Trump or not, there are issues that will come hand in hand with his presidency if he is elected into office, issues that will impact us all, no matter where we come from.
A recent item in the news that caught my attention was the controversy concerning President Obama’s decision to use an executive order to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States. Given the amount of controversy surrounding this decision, it can be easy to see why some may be flustered by President Obama’s executive order.
The details of the order are fairly clear. Under the order, immigrants who are here are essentially allowed to stay in America. Their children are eligible for federal retirement benefits if they are under 30, but the parents are not. There are some bureaucratic catches with the system, such as having to reapply every 3-5 years, but that is the gist of what the order does.
This article’s job is not to talk about the legality of such an action. Others have done so. This article’s job is to talk about whether President Obama has the authority to enact such a piece of legislation.
In short, he does.
The office of the president has always had broad powers concerning executive action. In general, unless the Constitution explicitly bars the president from doing something, it can be argued that the president can make changes to that law.
So unless the Constitution directly says: The President of the United States cannot, under any cause, make sweeping changes to the immigration laws of the United States; President Obama, like every other president before him, most certainly has the authority to enact such legislation.
Apparently, America has always been fine with presidents asserting their executive power during times of war. Franklin Delano Roosevelt instigated the War Powers Acts which gave him increased Executive authority directly after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Incidentally, FDR is also the president with the most executive orders under his name. Luckily, this bring the conversation to an important question concerning the ethics of President Obama’s executive action.
During Bill Clinton’s presidency, he issued a total of 363 executive orders. President Bush (Jr.) issued 290 executive orders during his 2 term presidency. One important factor in all of these presidencies, including Obama’s current term is that all three of these men won reelection, meaning that Clinton, Bush, and Obama did/will serve for 8 years.
Compared to the previous 2 presidents, Obama has issued the fewest executive actions, totaling in at only 190 executive orders since he took office in 2008. So the argument that conservatives flock to, that Obama cares not for the Constitution and is Dictator Obama or Fuher Obama is simply ridiculous. If anything, President Obama uses the executive powers of his office far less than other modern presidents did during their terms. It is worth noting that Obama still has two years left until he leaves office in 2016, so he may still surpass Bash in numbers of orders issued. However, that is not the case right now.
It is not my aim to pretend that this ruling doesn’t come with a certain sense of politicking. I’d argue it most certainly does. Along with Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, this is probably President Obama’s most emphatic statement concerning his own presidential legacy to date. The Democrats almost always fare better with all minority voters than Republicans do.
Democrats often receive a bigger chunk of the Hispanic vote, the black vote, the female vote, and the young vote. In many cases, it is not a stretch to say the only group the Republican party gets in overwhelming numbers is the middle aged/old white male vote. To be certain, President Obama’s recent decision concerning immigration is both an act of social justice and political victory.
The biggest mistake made thus far in this discussion is that the questions that have been asked about the executive order do not get at the heart of the question at hand. Instead of arguing semantics as to whether Obama has the authority to do this, we should be asking what good or bad will come from this executive order. And for that answer, only time will tell.
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well,” he said.
As the clock continues to tick down towards Election Day 2012, I (as both a concerned citizen and a member of the student media establishment) am watching all the associated pomp and circumstance with a great deal of resigned interest. Having already voted by absentee ballot in both the national and hometown races, I can’t help but feel the interesting part – interesting to me, at least – is over with for another couple of weeks.
On Nov. 25, the student body at Radford University learned of a significant change in their student government; President Lee Hicks was stepping down, and Executive Vice President Emily Redd would become the new president.
The email said Hicks was leaving the position and the university for medical reasons.
“Although I am very sad that Lee resigned, I believe he made the correct choice and wish him a speedy recovery,” said Dean of Students Don Appiarius.
Hicks told the SGA executive board of his plans to step down on Nov. 10 at their meeting. After this announcement, the SGA prepared to elect a new president.
“He had been very sick, in and out of the hospital all semester,” Redd said. “He needed to go home and get healthy.”
The election was between Redd, and Justin Blankenship, the legislative vice president. The vote was put to the senate and each person followed the procedures outlined in the SGA constitution. The vote took about 45 minutes, which Redd said felt like a lifetime, but in the end she came out the victor.
So, how is she going to fill such big shoes on the spot? She’s relying on her executive board and the organization to be flexible.
“It’s tough just coming in and picking up everything,” Redd said. “It’s chaotic but it’s been pretty smooth. The organization has taken it in stride and it has gone as well as it could have when an organization loses a leader.”
Redd said she hasn’t run into any big issues yet, just the small hurdles she expected.
“I’m just trying to get my feet underneath me.”
The main responsibility of the president, according to Redd, is to orchestrate a connection between the administration and students in order to turn ideas into actions. Her first act as president was meeting with Appiarius and Vice President of Student Affairs Mark Shanley. They sat down and laid out expectations and the changes they wanted to see in SGA and the administration.
“SGA is losing its relevancy on college campuses,” Redd said. “I want to improve communication to faculty, administration and students. Without that [communication] we don’t have a goal or a vision.”
After meeting Redd, Appiarius and Shanley developed high hopes for Redd and her future with SGA.
“I have full confidence, which I have heard consistently reinforced by other students, faculty and staff, that Emily will lead a very smooth transition and will do an excellent job as the student body president,” Appiarius said. “She is equally committed to advocating for students and responsibly representing their interests and concerns to the administration and faculty.”
Shanley agreed, adding his belief that the senate, executive board and cabinet will rally around Redd in a collective effort to get SGA back on track and alter their agenda so they can identify and respond to student interests and concerns.
Now that she’s president, Redd has a new vision for SGA.
“I want students to know what SGA does and make SGA relevant,” Redd said. “That’s something we need to fix as an organization. We need to mix the big ideas that take time to work with the small things they can see immediate benefits from.”
In order to do that she plans to get SGA out there and make it more personal.
“Emails, Facebook and fliers are too impersonal, so they get ignored,” Redd said. “I want to get face to face with students. The more face time people have with us, the better we will be as an organization.”
Her plans for the future are to plan more forums about campus issues, plan a state of the student body speech event and increase student appreciation days.
She wants students to see SGA in action and spark interest in the organization in hopes of increasing membership.
“With more members we’ll get more opinions, and the more opinions we have the better we’ll be.” Redd said.
In 2008, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States of America through a wave of grassroots political organizing. His record-breaking campaign relied heavily on newly registered voters as well, especially college-aged voters.