I totally agree with Emerald Hughes on her post Free College Tuition. Hughes says that college tuition should be free because now it is compared to a high school diploma. I totally agree with her. In the past not everyone used to go to college. College was only for the people who were real serious about their education and needed it. Now people need to go to college for a job that isn't taking peoples orders. People who want to have a successful career now need to rely on college. The only problem with this is that they are ending up with student debt. I do believe that free college tuition would be very helpful for people and raise the standard of living in the United States due to all the people being able to getting better jobs.

I think that the United States Government should be more aggressive towards the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and attack and cripple their system leaving them vulnerable for a new power to rise. We will most likely have to repeat what we did in Iraq. We need to stop this dangerous organization from further terrorism to all people on this planet.

Sadly I think one of the best ways to achieve the goal of getting rid of ISIS is to go to "war" with them. It is kind of scary to think about going to war with them because it could possibly lead to an even bigger war (worst case scenario World War 3.) If ISIS only has its Islamic supporters then there is less of a worry about them influencing other people/countries and becoming a bigger threat. There is already other countries that have been attacked by ISIS and are in favor of ISIS being eliminated. With the support from other countries it would be possible to eliminate ISIS faster. The United States along with other countries will combine forces and take out the target completely or majorly cripple them leaving them susceptible to being overthrown.

Once ISIS is gone then we stay and make sure things are politically stable over there before leaving. Last time we went over to Iraq and got rid of the main leader and his supporters we left a vacuum for anyone to fill. ISIS unfortunately filled that vacuum and gained power. We will now know not to pull out of there so soon while the government is very unstable. I think that this strategy would be nice to pursue, but this is just what I think and have come up with from our previous encounter with a situation like this.

I totally agree with David Acosta on his blog post Legalize the Use of Recreational Marijuana! Acosta gives a very reasonable argument on this topic. He talks about how legalizing marijuana will helps America's financial status, and bring the rate of crime down. He backs both of these thoughts up with his interpretation of what would happen and the benefits in doing so. Acosta goes on about how the government could tax marijuana and make money from the taxes. This would bring more money to the government and like he said it could go towards helping our debt. He also talks about how it is safer compared to other legal substances like tobacco. I totally agree with him on that statement. Tobacco leads to cancer and many other negative health related issues. Another substance that is legal but also does serious damage to a person is alcohol. People can get alcohol poisoning and die, unlike marijuana which you can not consume too much of and die. It is kind of weird how a substance that has no linked deaths and can ruin a persons life (getting arrested and going to jail) is illegal, unlike tobacco and alcohol which have been linked to the deaths of people. There would be pros if the recreational use of marijuana was allowed in the United States.

After hearing the news about the FDA and their tobacco deeming regulations I was surprised. The FDA plans to ban 99%-plus of vapor products. Vapes do not even come close to the damage cigarettes cause. Vapes are a healthier alternative to smoking and it has the possibility to become banned. Congress needs to to support and cosponsor HR 285 which is a bill that will prevent this from happening.

If the tobacco deeming regulations go through it will have some consequences. First off many people would be upset with this choice. On October 28th tens of thousands people called the white house urging president Obama to reconsider the  damage that will be caused by what the FDA is trying to do. Another consequence would be the loss of online business and stores. They would have to shut down due to the fact that they will not be able to sell the products they carry because it will be banned.

What will be left is what the big tobacco companies have to offer. Nothing else. All the variations will be taken away and people will be turned off to the idea of vaping. People will either have to quit smoking all together or go back to cigarettes. I personally do not think that this is a good idea. Why take away what the people want? Obviously there is not chemicals like what are found in cigarettes involved in the process of making the liquid for the vapes. The only similar ingredient is nicotine. The e-liquid is generally made of four ingredients: nicotine, vegetable glycerin, propylene gylcol, and flavoring. Unlike all the harmful components involved in cigarettes this contains none. The government really needs to reconsider letting the FDA do this.

In the article "Why I don't use the term "police brutality"" by Raghav Sharma he talks about the reasons he feels like police brutality is an understatement. Sharma is a political activist studying at the University of Pittsburgh who writes on electoral and campaign finance issues, foreign policy, and economic affairs. This article is aimed for people who talk about police brutality. Sharma gives a couple of examples of police violence towards the citizens including one man being tortured and tasered while strapped to a restraining chair, then shortly dying after. Another example is of this young man being taken away and held in custody informally without anyone knowing where he went and without informing or letting his lawyer know where he was taken (it was in a warehouse similar to the CIA "black site.") Sharma then says how "we have watched our nation's law enforcement agents, sworn to serve and protect, have engaged in a decades-long campaign of violence..." He says these unjust actions have been going on for a while. He does agree that the unjust actions committed by police are brutal, but saying that they were committed by police "makes the act seem like it was committed in response to duty's call," which obviously torturing and kidnapping people is in no way a response to the call of duty. He then finishes up by saying that our legal system is structured to protect the ones who are committing these injustices to the american people, and the more we fight this flawed system the more "terror inflicted" actions we will see at our homeland. I find this statement to be depressingly true.

In the article keep budget caps, cut entitlements: Column, Marc Short who is the president of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce and Andy Keonig who is the senior policy advisor there as well talk about government spending and the Budget Control Act. This is aimed at people who can vote and are concerned about the government's spending. They first introduce Budget Control Act and explain how it established spending caps that limit the annual growth of domestic and other non-entitlement spending. They then say how Republicans are for an increase in defense spending, and Democrats are against spending tax payers money. But this is "nothing more than a bluster" to clear any confusion on why the government spending is the way it is. They go on to talk about how if we keep the Act then it will help save discretion money while having nothing to do with growing entitlement spending, making it grown by $1.5 trillion. They then go on to say how the caps pretty much limited the government spending the past two presidents. If we go on with out the caps then the government spending will truly be out of control. They then propose a solution which is to  trade the increase with a corresponding and immediate decrease in mandatory spending. This is a smart choice because the entitlement programs and interest payments are the two major things that are leading the nations debt. They then finish by saying if we don't do anything to positively address this problem then they will be "breaking their promise to the American people."

Donald Trump argues for pro gun laws in the article "Donald Trump Has A New Gun Plan, And It's Just As Crazy As You Think" . He talks about how he wants to create a federal law that mimics drivers license but for guns. This means if you get a permit for a gun in one state it works in all the other 50 states. He also talks about how having guns is in the best interest of the public because sometimes we may need to defend ourselves. He says, " our personal protection is ultimately up to us," because the law enforcement won't always be there. I think this is important to read because if he does end up having this law go into effect then many more Americans will have guns. He also plans to make with the background checks also look at peoples mental history, because if they are violent then they could end up hurting people.