It might sound repetitive from my part, but it is important to highlight the loss in public participation in the United States when it comes to American politics. After reading a commentary about Latino turnout in the voting stages of the Presidential election it becomes evident once again that we serve America best when we are united and united we cast our vote.
The article, written in the Opinion section of the American Statesman, talks of the slow and very low participation of the Latino community in the United States political process. The author, Gissela SantaCruz who is of Latino background, expresses her desire for the Hispanic and Latino community to wake up from their dormant status and tune into the Presidential campaign. According to her observation, a majority of Hispanics and Latinos obtain information from the prominent television network: Univision. However she also makes a point of reiterating that although efforts by big corporations are needed and appreciated, the ultimate impact is made by the voter. Her commentary is aimed to reach the Hispanics and Latinos that follow up on social and political aspects of the country, but that do not necessarily make their opinion count when it comes to participating in the polls. From the standpoint of a Hispanic person, and a student attending a higher level institution, her approach was too gentle and not concise enough to develop her point. More than just providing facts to the White or African American reader, SantaCruz would have delivered her point better by appealing in Spanish and providing examples of why the Latino vote is significant in the current 2016 Presidential Election.
People do not seek to be reminded of why they must act, but what they do need, is inspiration that will incite a need to participate within them. If they know someone's act made an impact, they will act with more confidence and push others to do the same.

Following the Democratic Debate Crisis

Considering that only eight million Americans tuned into the democratic debate last night, and that Americans are constantly asking for a powerful, educated and experienced leader to lead them out of their current socio-economic status, I think it is of primary interest for the deaf public to be informed and to be knowledgeable in the platforms that each candidate runs on.
Last night after the contentious democratic debate took place Politico, a prominent political journalist organization, published an article wherein they established the main points established by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the overlook both Clinton and Sanders based their arguments on the idea that the United States is in a state of despair and need of repair. On the one hand, Bernie Sanders came in as a hopeful fighter who often used ideas of a poverty, referring to the state of the nation as that of "Grapes of Wrath", to introduce concepts of equality in the work place, equality in the notion of race, and a chance for those immigrants who live in a place they call home. Such views, along with the connected idea of courage and valor produced a positive message and made Bernie the likable character of the night. In the other hand however, Clinton came in as a critical politician who pointed out Bernie's inexperience in the field of foreign affairs and an anti-democrat who, like other Republicans, made a farce of current President Barack Obama.
In the end, it is up to the viewer's discretion to identify who the true winner was. But Bernie's constant inability to transmit a viewpoint or simply respond a question, made him a questionable candidate. After all, what is it that the public seeks in their candidates? A person who serves as great inspiration during times of hardship, or an experienced critic who speaks of experience rather than change? Whichever it may be, the public needs to watch the debates, and voice their questions before it is too late. After all, a government works best for those that participate.


~"We Serve America Best When We Are United"