The GOP primary debates in August and September were ratings blockbusters, in large part because the Republican Party has degenerated into a drunken circus. But notwithstanding the fact that three of the candidates on stage Tuesday night—former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley; former Senator Jim Webb; former Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee—have negligible support among Democratic voters, and thus a big incentive to make an impression, the first Democratic debate is expected to be a more sober, and lower-rated event.

An obvious, but undermentioned reality of U.S. politics at the moment  is that making a splash in the Democratic party doesn’t require grasping for reactionary, unpopular policy positions, while in the Republican party, it does.

But just because the Democratic candidates don’t deny climate change, or promise to build walls along our borders and deport all of our unauthorized immigrants, doesn’t make them immune to trafficking in fantasy. And that makes it incumbent upon us in the media to clearly distinguish between the candidates’ ideological preferences, and the promises they’ll reliably be able to keep.

The gloomy truth about the 2016 campaign is that while Democratic candidates, like Republican candidates, must campaign on aspirations, all of them are aware that if the country elects a Democrat in 2016, he or she will probably inherit a Republican House, and perhaps a Republican Senate as well, significantly limiting the potential scope of liberal reform.

Democratic candidates can draw strong ideological distinctions between one another, but their presidencies will be circumscribed by less lofty constraints like political strategy and technocratic imagination.

For instance: Bernie Sanders wants college to be free for everyone; Hillary Clinton wants to means test tuition subsidies. This tells you something important about the different roles the two candidates think the federal government should play in our higher education system, but almost nothing about how higher education policy would change in a Sanders or Clinton presidency.

Tuesday night’s debate is an opportunity to sort abstract preferences from the likely governing constraints a Democratic president will face in 2017, and to assess the candidates’ strategic thinking about how to work through or around those constraints.

We already know how the leading candidates propose to grapple with polarization and gridlock. Clinton has consistently argued that making progress in our system of government today requires an appetite and instinct for partisan combat—a theory bolstered by the massive resistance with which Republicans responded to President Barack Obama’s promise of accommodation and bipartisanship.

Read more at: newrepublic.com.

The post Campaign Promises vs. Actual Governing appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Summary:

Obama’s executive order has established the National Strategic Computing Initiative (NSCI) which is a

whole-of-government effort designed to create a cohesive, multi-agency strategic vision and Federal investment strategy, executed in collaboration with industry and academia, to maximize the benefits of HPC for the United States.

The objectives of this order are to build an exascale computing system (super computer) that is capable of delivering 100 times the performance of current 10 petaflop systems. This means the system will run at 1 exaflop or 1 quintillion calculations per second. This is about 30 times faster than most super computers used today. the Tianhe-2 can perform 33,860 trillion calculation a second which is about double what Titan, the leading US super computer can do. The order also aims to bring coherence to the two computing categories of modeling and simulation with analytic computing. A 15 year path is to be set for the future of high performance computing with regards to semiconductor technology.

The order will take an all encompassing approach for use in areas such as networking technology, workflow, downward scaling, foundational algorithms and software, accessibility, and workforce development. All of this research and development will be shared with the private and academic sectors to promote technology advances and collaboration.

Here are the government agencies that will be involved with the endeavor.

Lead Agencies: The Department of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Foundational Research and Development Agencies:  The Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).

Deployment Agencies: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The Real Story Of Obama’s Executive Order

Obama’s executive order can be analyzed in several ways. One way to look at it is that the US feels it must take back the title of world’s fastest super computer. China’s Tianhe-2 is the current leader. However, the cost and energy of creating and running the system are extremely high. The Tianhe-2 ran a price tag of  $2.4 billion.

We should also take a look at the calculation times and practicality of the system. This new order will surely produce a super computer that outperforms the Tianhe-2. But the Tianhe-2 is actually 142,024 times slower than the Bitcoin network. And other cryptocurrency systems can be quite faster. The BitShares system is capable of producing up to 100,000 transactions per second. In comparison to Visa’s typical transaction time of  2,000 transactions per second, it is quite impressive. Keep in mind that theses systems run on a vast network of computers all over the world and that one cryptocurrency transaction is not equal to one super computer calculation. A cryptocurrency transaction can be very simple, where as a super computer transaction can be very involved.

As far as practicality, complaints have been made about the current leading super computer. In China:

Dr Cao Jun, a team leader at Daya Bay, said they had no interest in Tianhe-2 for a number of reasons: a huge amount of data could choke the computational monster; data flow from one calculating unit to another could be slow; and a slower machine at the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of High Energy Physics could get the same job done more quickly and cheaply.

“Tianhe-2 cannot give us what we need,” he said. “It is not quite suitable for high energy physics. I am not sure what it can do.”

Computers like these need special code that can take months if not years to create. Otherwise the machine is not efficient.

A likely use for this super computer, is by agencies like the NSA. The NSA is currently under the DOD which is a leading agency on this order. We might see this computer end up at a place like the NSA’s Utah data center. This data center is where the NSA processes and stores all types of info and records on American citizens and people around the world.

All in all this super computer is going to costs a great amount of money. And at the rate of technology depreciation (no one wants last years iPhone) we might see little value out of this computer in 5 years. We could also see great innovation come from Obama’s executive order. These innovations will be shared with both the private and academic sectors which would be a win for everyone.

It would also be ironic for the US to have the greatest super computer ever built but still be so apprehensive about online voting. Just a thought.

What are your thoughts? Does the US need the bragging rights of fastest super computer? And should the NSA get their hands on it? Many consider the NSA to be invasive while others say their actions are justified. Let us know in the comment section below.

About the author: Will Long is the Marketing Manager of Follow My Vote.

The post The Real Story Of Obama’s Executive Order To Create The Worlds Fastest Super Computer. appeared first on Follow My Vote.

The G-8 is a forum of the leading industrialized countries in the world and is made up of the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada, Japan, and Russia.

However, all countries except Russia pulled out of the group to form the Group of 7, or G-7, in lieu of Russia’s continued lack of cooperation.

This action comes after many policy experts and citizens of these 7 countries have criticized America’s lack of leadership and inability to control the actions of Russia in the Crimean situation.

President Obama recently announced economic sanctions on many of Russian President Putin’s top advisors to send a message that his actions would not be tolerated.

The western countries are seeking to further isolate Russia economically, as well as politically, in order to create the pressure necessary to have him pull Russian troops out of Ukraine.

The seven countries have come out and said that they will continue to explore options for additional sanctions to further hurt the Russian economy as punishment for its recent aggression and blatant disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty.

In addition, concern over Russian military troop movements around the region has caused European leaders to call for increased NATO support in the region, as a show of strength and defense. President Obama called for a greater commitment to countries in Europe to maintain a regular presence to deter continuing Russian threats in the region.

It is evident that the situation in Crimea is far from over, as the now Group of 7 continue to discuss how to make the Russians feel the effects of sanctions and look to put additional pressure on President Putin to de-escalate.

One thing is for certain; Russia is helping unite all of Europe and the United States against its aggression, which will not bode well for their already slow economy, as the West looks to lash back at the aggressive regime in Moscow.

Source: politico.com.

The post G-(now 7) says Good-bye to Russia and Summit in Sochi appeared first on Follow My Vote.

 It is important for the average American citizen to understand the situation as it has potential implications all over the world.

The protests began when the Ukrainian government rejected a trade deal with the European Union (EU) to help save their crumbling economy, in part because of Russian pressure to accept a $15 billion bailout from Russia instead of receiving a bailout from the EU.

This led to hundreds of thousands of people engaging in protests that quickly turned into a full-scale protest against the government leadership under President Viktor Yanukovyh. The government and police force clamped down on opposition and enacted anti-protesting laws to no avail, as the protests grew and led to the ousting of President Yanukovyh.

It seems the people of Ukraine have rejected the idea of cozying up to Russia and are seeking more independence from their neighbor to the east. However, their heavy dependence on Russian oil is causing fear that a split might put their economy deeper into a recession.

Despite this opposition, Vladimir Putin (President of Russia) does not want the Ukrainian leadership turning to the west for aid, as he fears this will only draw western influence closer to Russia. Russia, in turn, decided to invade the region of Crimea in Eastern Ukraine, with the guise of protecting the Russian-speaking citizens in the region, as they view the political environment has grown volatile and unsafe under the opposition leadership.

The United States has condemned this act of invasion but, as of yet, has not taken any steps to punish Russia for their actions. President Obama has argued that Russia’s invasion of Crimea is a breach of their sovereignty. Yet, Putin has defended his right to intervene in Crimea, as they are a predominately Russian-speaking region, but according to Gallup polls only 23% of the people in the region want to be a part of Russia.

Since the invasion of Crimea, the new government of Ukraine has requested NATO help to protect their sovereignty; but, so far, no NATO military options are on the table.

Putin’s true motives are yet to be revealed, but one thing is sure; this situation has major implications for the geo-political relationship between the United States and Russia and has swiftly brought Russia back to the forefront of policy focus.

WE at Follow My Vote want to know what you think. What should the United States next step be?

Sources:
http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303775504579393324230970300

The post Why Ukraine Is Falling Apart: What you need to know! appeared first on Follow My Vote.

In the aftermath of this proposition, economists analyzed the effects introducing this legislation on the economy, jobs, and the poor, in order to determine whether to raise it or not.

Several argue that raising the minimum wage will have positive effects on America’s poor by enabling them to drastically improve their standards of living, according to statistics. With a new rate of $10.10 an hour, estimates conclude that this will reduce the average number of people living in poverty by approximately 4.6 million and raise the average income of the 10^th percentile by $1,700. This argument presents that any legislation that uplifts those in poverty while not causing the government to spend money on an anti-poverty program is positive.

Another argument that supports raising the minimum wage is that it will provide a boost to the economy by putting more spending power in the hands of the people. It would allow them to stimulate businesses by increasing their ability to spend. They argue that, in this economy, businesses would benefit dramatically from increased revenue by a consumer group that doesn’t normally contribute to their revenue. Proponents of this argument state that more spending power for consumers will enable business to grow and innovate, which would benefit the economy.

However, opponents of this new proposal argue that, while raising the minimum wage has the potential to raise the quality of living for the poorest workers, it would have actual negative effects on workers by reducing the ability of many businesses to hire the same number of employees as they currently have. The paradox of raising the wage for workers faced by businesses is that, while some workers will benefit by increases in their wages, others will be laid off because businesses will not be able to afford maintaining the same size work force.

Other opponents of this law argue that raising the minimum wage to $10.10 will make it harder for new workers to gain minimum wage positions because they will have to prove that they can bring enough value to the company to match this higher rate. This will inhibit many teens from obtaining their first jobs, as companies will not want to spend this higher rate on unskilled, inexperienced labor. Furthermore, employers will be hard-pressed to want to pay workers a value of $10.10 an hour if they are not adding the difference in profit. Employers will hire fewer workers in order to preserve profits to maintain labor costs.

The paradox of raising the minimum wage remains, as while it appears to be promising in bringing higher income to the poor, it may cause businesses to cut jobs and many people will not have an opportunity to work and gain the experience necessary to obtain higher paying jobs.

But WE at Follow My Vote want to know what you think. Should the minimum wage in the United States be raised from $7.25 to $10.10?

Billy Sharp

The post The Minimum Wage Argument: To raise or not to raise? appeared first on Follow My Vote.

President Obama argued in his State of the Union Address that executive action may be necessary in 2014 to ensure that this does not become a lame duck year, where Congress doesn’t pass much legislation during a time in this country when improving economic conditions  is desperately needed.

However, many argue that, by simply bypassing Congress to pass legislation that the president and his supporters feel is needed, defeats the entire purpose of having a separation of powers. In other words, by bypassing Congress, the president will be bypassing the representatives of the people that have been elected to make laws.

Obama insisted that his priorities must be passed in order to keep the U.S. economy on the track of improvement and meet the needs of the American people. He has issued 168 executive orders to date, which by standards of past presidents is fewest, yet his varied much more in scope than his predecessors.  His orders extend from delaying enforcement of his health care act, legislation created to limit carbon emissions, deferring deportation of younger illegal aliens, to orders for drone strikes.

Obama argues that Congress is refusing to act out of spite and he will bypass them where he has to pass legislation. When taking into account the amount of bills that Congress passed last year, 72 in total, it is evident that the 113^th Congress had an ineffective 2013. But, should the president’s response to an ineffective Congress be to bypass them altogether?

WE at Follow My Vote believe that, in a democratic system of government where there is supposed to be a separation of powers, having a healthy debate and being willing to negotiate with those that think differently in an effort to compromise on outcomes the majority of people will support is the best way to keep the American people’s views relevant and our system of government protected.

Our government was intended to be for the people by the people, to serve our interests and protect our rights, which is why we must demand that The President of the United States and Congress debate, negotiate, and be willing to compromise in 2014, in order to protect the interests of “We the People” and preserve our democratic system of government.

Billy Sharp

The post Executive Action in 2014: The Phone and the Pen appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Thankfully, due to the rare compromise from our elected officials, we just avoided crashing through the United States’ debt ceiling, an event with potentially catastrophic consequences, one that could have sent the US and global economy into yet another damaging recession.

Although our elected officials can’t seem to agree on anything these days, a new study NBC is conducting argues that the people of the United States of America, “We the People”, actually tend to agree on much more than we disagree when it comes to the issues. Yet, due to partisan politics in the United States, “We the People” have been led to believe differently.

At the end of the day, if we want to progress as a society, building on what we have in common in order to prevent things like this happening again, “We the People” must begin holding our elected officials accountable.

Follow My Vote is a nonpartisan organization aiming to bridge the gap between the citizens of the United States and our elected officials to ensure that “We the People” are accurately represented as a society moving forward. In doing so, our hope is that we put an end to partisan politics in the United States and make way for progress that “We the People” truly support.

If you believe in our cause, please help us spread the word and/or contribute to our crowdfunding campaign today!

Source:
washingtonpost.com
nbcnews.com

The post Too Close For Comfort appeared first on Follow My Vote.

Yesterday marked the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s ‘I Have A Dream’ speech, a speech that changed the world…forever!

To commemorate his historic speech, which took place on August 28th, 1963, thousands of people flocked to Washington D.C. to remember that moment, a sheer act of courage from someone who paid the ultimate price for standing up for what he believed in. Also, President Obama, Clinton, and Carter as well as many other prominent speakers took the podium at the Lincoln Memorial and addressed the crowd. (WATCH: Presidents Obama, Clinton and Carter Speak at the event)

Ahead of this event, TIME Magazine released their ‘I Have A Dream’ Anniversary Issue,’ honoring Martin Luther King Jr. as a ‘Founding Father’ of the United States.

In honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and the rest of the Founding Father of the United States of America, if you are willing and able to contribute to our cause, we are prepared to honor you by posting your name on our website as an honorary “Founding Father” of Follow My Vote!

The post Crowdfunding Campaign Just Launched! appeared first on Follow My Vote.