Based on the article “The State of our Union Is Not Strong” from the National Review.

Since the beginning of the State of the Union, it has been a common ritual that typically repeats itself year after year: a few dumb jokes from the president to start things off (this year’s was to 2016 presidential candidates and offering them his advice for how to win the Iowa caucus), a laundry list of policies the president hoped to get done in his remaining year in office (from closing Gitmo to making college affordable for all), a recap of past accomplishments as president (from passing the Affordable Care Act, to job growth, to having Osama Bin Laden shot in the head), a running list of generic American archetypes represented in the room by real-life people invited to attend, carefully crafted applause lines that were meant to elicit standing ovations from one side of the aisle but not the other, callbacks to previous campaign slogans, moon shots , and a rousing call for America to do better, and finally a mention that the state of the union is great!

In my opinion, people don’t see the state of the Union address as what it really is, a political ploy for the president to tell the people what he “plans” on doing and how well he has actually done. Although all SOTU are composed of the same things, we have to realize that with all speeches that happen annually, there is going to be similarities between them no matter how different they claim to be. This is important because if we don’t see things as they are and get mad about the little things, then we won’t see the bigger picture. We get mad because “Obama said the exact same thing as everyone else.” Well that may be true, but shouldn’t we be more concerned about the false information he is feeding us and the things he’s been saying he’ll do since the Iowa caucuses that somehow haven’t managed to be done, such as cutting deficits by three-quarters, America’s economy is not in decline, the affordable care act is all about you, recklessness on Wall Street caused the financial crisis, we’ve protected an open internet, and no nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that’s the path to ruin.

Based on the article Can Donald Trump Actually Be The GOP Nominee? by Dan Balz on the Washington Post.

What was unthinkable a few months ago now no longer is. Trump’s durability in national polls and his standing in the early states have forced GOP leaders — and all his rivals — to confront the possibility that the New York billionaire and reality TV star could end up leading the party into the fall campaign against the Democrats. Unless and until he actually wins primaries and caucuses, the race will remain what it has been for months: a confusing mash-up among a relative handful of candidates looking to pick up the pieces of a possible Trump breakdown. The GOP race is now commonly defined as a pair of contests. The first features Trump and Cruz fighting to emerge as the leading candidate in what is either defined as the anger lane, the populist conservative lane or the outsider lane. In their own ways, both Trump and Cruz embody the vibrant anti-establishment anger of the grass roots. The other contest is the battle among more mainstream conservatives, representatives in one form or another of a nervous party establishment worried about protecting down-ballot candidates in the fall.
That battle features Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and former Florida governor Jeb Bush. Normally, the establishment is in the driver’s seat in nomination battles. This time, those candidates have found themselves on the defensive and struggling to adapt to a Trump-dominated environment.

In my opinion though, Trump still, as he did in the beginning, stands absolutely no chance to win the GOP primary. Trump brings out the radicals, which are the people who really stand up for what they believe in and that means entering in polls and things such as that. When the people hiding back behind the curtain come out for the election days, we will see as a nation that, although he put up a fight, Trump really never stood a chance. Our nation should be nervous though because the idea of having a radicalist in each post up clawing for the presidency is NOT where America should be. If we have Clinton and Trump in the two top seats, other nations and our own will see that as the end of the American empire because it truly will be.

Based on the article Political Ignorance and Bombing Agrabah by Ilya Somin from The Washington Post.

A recent poll shows that 30% of Republicans and 19% of Democrats support bombing Agrabah-the fictional nation portrayed in Aladdin just because the name sounds like it could potentially be an Islamic nation. Even though these results seem unreasonable, it actually makes more sense than you’d think. This is due to political ignorance. People feel as though it is rational to make such radical opinions on subjects such as these because their opinion is not going to affect anything, which in many cases is a probable argument. In responding to surveys, many don’t want to be admit their ignorance, so they poll on something that they know nothing about, almost in the same way we guess on standardized tests because we don’t want people to think we don’t know what we are talking about. When people make rash decisions such as these, and in some cases even in presidential elections, they rely on crude information shortcuts. A crude information shortcut is saying that you are going to bomb Agrabah because it sounds vaguely Arabic, survey respondents could make up the reasonable story in their minds that the poll creator is asking this question because there could be potential Islamic terrorist there. That story that seems to be proposed through the question supports the results from the quiz: of Trump’s strong conservative voters, 46% of them support the bombing of this fake nation. The author suggests that this is okay, simply because their ignorance is rational.

In my opinion, though this is a good argument, the amount of ignorance in this is scary and, though rational, it is not okay. The amounting levels of ignorance, not only politically but in many other areas of society, is heading in a bad direction and we need to find a way to make this better. People making such opinionated statements on subjects that their isn’t even information for them to study is completely ignorant. I believe that the idea of the entire poll is ignorant. Although the poll is to find the ignorance in America, it really shows the ignorance of the poll maker for even asking this question.