# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon symbolizes Hillary Clinton's opinion that a mother should be able to abort at any point while pregnant. This is done by showing an elephant (the republican party) not want supporting Trump as a child (becoming president) late in the process (republicans abandon Trump late in the election). This is shown  by the elephant pregnant with Trump saying, "I changed my mind." This appeals anyone not a Republican.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gary Johnson Article-Eliminating Federal Minimum Wage

# data[].attributes.subject
Gary Johnson Article-Eliminating Federal Minimum Wage

# data[].attributes.body
Gary Johnson is against federal minimum wage. Having an ever growing minimum wage doesn't bring people out of poverty, but rather leaves lower-skilled workers jobless. But some states use the federal minimum wage only as a benchmark, and taking it away altogether would make some states drop minimum wage entirely. Unfortunately, there is no definite prediction as to what eliminating minimum wage, but there are two main effects for sure. Employment rates would go up, but minimum wage would go down. With a higher minimum wage, companies would have more have more productive workers. But in urban areas like New York or Chicago, employees aren't worth $15, but companies will pay a $9 or $10 wage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Raising the minimum wage is a hot topic in the 2016 campaign, made more interesting by Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson's plan: he wants to eliminate the 78-year-old standard altogether.

The former New Mexico governor's approach contrasts sharply with Hillary Clinton who currently favors a $12 minimum wage, a sharp increase from the present $7.25 an hour minimum. Republican Donald Trump also recently came around to supporting a bump to $10 after initially opposing any increase.

Not Johnson. "Libertarians are fiscally conservative, and socially they really don't give a damn as long as you don't force your social whatever-it-is on anybody else," he said in a June interview with CNN. "I do not support a federal minimum wage."

This idea to get rid of the minimum wage stems from the libertarian belief of freedom of contract, according to James Dorn, a senior fellow with the libertarian-leaning think tank Cato Institute.

"Free society employees ought to be paid the going market wage rate, making it a voluntary contract," Dorn said.

Libertarians believe supply and demand in labor markets should set the wage rate. Having an ever-growing federal minimum wage keeps lower skilled workers out of the workforce, raising joblessness.

"The problem with minimum wage is it prices people out of the market, and keeps lower skilled people out of the work force," said Dorn, who holds a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Virginia. "Progressives will argue raising the minimum wage is the only way to get people out of poverty, but it actually makes it harder for people to enter into the workforce."

The federal minimum wage has set benchmark wage rates for decades across America. But Gary Johnson's proposal - just do away with it, period - might not be so earthshaking since many states, and some municipalities, already have their own minimum.

"States have been moving ahead of the federal minimum wage for years, which may limit the effect of eliminating it," said Harry Holzer, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University. "But states use the federal minimum as a benchmark, so if it didn't exist some states may drop their minimum levels, or eliminate them entirely."

The federal minimum wage was instituted in 1938 as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented a minimum hourly wage of 25 cents an hour to lift the nation out of the Great Depression. The last increase occurred in 2007, when Congress raised the rate from $5.15 an hour to $7.25, an incremental rise over two years.

Currently, 19 states and Washington D.C. have established minimum wages higher than the federal rate.

Georgetown's Holzer said there is not enough research to understand definitively the consequences of eliminating the federal minimum wage, but he said it would have two main effects.

"Employment rates would probably go up a bit, but people would have lower wages," he said in an interview. "This would probably be a pretty severe tradeoff."

Center for American Progress economist Michael Madowitz says the federal minimum wage is crucial in preventing "a race to the bottom situation," and should be increased in order to boost worker productivity.

"When wages are rising, companies have an incentive to invest in something that makes their workers more productive, and that's the key to economic growth," said Madowitz at the left-leaning think tank. "I would be happy seeing it get anywhere over $10, and I think it will be better if it landed closer to the higher numbers than lower numbers."

Holzer said he would not opt for a federal minimum wage increase beyond $10, arguing that a bigger boost would cause the unemployment rate to rise in cities with unskilled workers.

"I would not go to $15 (the level favored by Sen. Bernie Sanders), especially in places like Los Angeles and Washington D.C., because a lot of employers will not hire people because they are not worth that much, they're maybe worth $9 or $10."

If Johnson reaches a 15 percent approval rate by mid-September, about 7 percentage points more than his current polling average, he'll qualify to debate Clinton and Trump. The first General Election debate is scheduled to take place on Sept. 26 at Hofstra University in New York.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eliminating the Minimum Wage: Inside Gary Johnson's Plan - Medill News Service

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Facebook Twitter WASHINGTON - Raising the minimum wage is a hot topic in the 2016 campaign, made more interesting by Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson's plan: he wants to eliminate the 78-year-old standard altogether. The former New Mexico governor's approach contrasts sharply with Hillary Clinton who currently favors a $12 minimum wage, a sharp increase ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Hillary Clinton Article-Eliminating gun violence

# data[].attributes.subject
Hillary Clinton Article-Eliminating gun violence

# data[].attributes.body
Gun violence has gotten out of control, and Hillary Clinton will put and an end to it. To do this she will expand background checks, eliminating gun show and online sales for guns loopholes. She will revoke gun licenses from criminals, eliminating our laws that protect criminals. Along with this, she will make it illegal to buy a gun if you are a domestic abuser or convicted of other violent crimes, or are severely mentally ill. Hillary Clinton uses common sense approaches, such as co-convening a White-House summit on School-Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly cooperated with laws to make gun purchasing loopholes. She is now supported by several different anti-gun groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on gun violence prevention.

Too many families in America have suffered-and continue to suffer-from gun violence. It's the leading cause of death among young African American men-more than the following nine causes combined. America cannot go on like this.

As president, Hillary will:

Expand background checks to more gun sales-including by closing the gun show and internet sales loopholes-and strengthen the background check system by getting rid of the so-called "Charleston Loophole."

Take on the gun lobby by removing the industry's sweeping legal protection for illegal and irresponsible actions (which makes it almost impossible for people to hold them accountable), and revoking licenses from dealers who break the law.

Keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill by supporting laws that stop domestic abusers from buying and owning guns, making it a federal crime for someone to intentionally buy a gun for a person prohibited from owning one, and closing the loopholes that allow people suffering from severe mental illness to purchase and own guns. She will also support work to keep military-style weapons off our streets.

Hillary has a record of advocating for commonsense approaches to reduce gun violence:

As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy, and strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.

As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation that would close the gun show loophole, voted against the dangerous immunity protections for gun dealers and manufacturers, and co-sponsored legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban.

As a candidate, she is honored to have the endorsement of many groups working to take on the epidemic of violence, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its Million Mom March chapters, the Newtown Action Alliance, and Everytown for Gun Safety-including Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gun violence prevention - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Note: This page is a reproduction of the Hillary for America policy proposal on gun violence prevention. Too many families in America have suffered-and continue to suffer-from gun violence. It's the leading cause of death among young African American men-more than the following nine causes combined. America cannot go on like this.

# data[].attributes.headline
Donald Trump Article-Mexico and U.S. wall

# data[].attributes.subject
Donald Trump Article-Mexico and U.S. wall

# data[].attributes.body
Donald Trump want to build a wall along the U.S. and Mexican border... but this may prove a challenge. First, the Mexican president flat-out refused to fund the wall. Treaty and flood zones would also prove a challenge, forcing the wall to be built well into the U.S., which would be awkward, seeing as Mexico would be building and overseeing the project. This would also create a no man's land, forcing the U.S. or Mexico to buy out this excess land. Along with this, a 1970 border treaty states that nothing can block the Mississippi river from flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. About 39 endangered species of animals an also be found along he border, which would prevent the wall being built in those areas.Finally, there's the cost, about $10 billion to $12 billion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Donald Trump promises to build a great wall along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, but it will be a difficult pledge to fulfill.

Can he do it?

Sure, a wall can be built, but it's not nearly as simple as Trump says it will be.

Constructing the wall, now a signature applause line at Trump campaign rallies, is a complicated endeavor, fraught with difficulties. Numerous bureaucratic, diplomatic, environmental, monetary and logistical hurdles must be overcome.

And forcing the Mexican government to foot the bill won't be easy, especially since its president has flat-out refused.

During President George W. Bush's second term, Congress authorized $1.2 billion to build several hundred miles of double-layer fencing but the government faced myriad obstacles. Private landowners objecting to buyout offers. There were environmental concerns and lawsuits.

Some 650 miles of border fencing now sits on the border, including roughly 15-foot tall steel fencing in many urban areas that is designed to stop or slow border crossers on foot and vehicle barriers, which are shorter steel posts filled with cement and planted in the ground.

Just getting that built was a challenge and a new, taller wall like the one Trump wants would almost certainly face as much, if not more, opposition.

A preview of the Republican presidential candidate's appearance at a University of Illinois-Chicago venue. Mar. 8, 2016. (CBS Chicago)

A preview of the Republican presidential candidate's appearance at a University of Illinois-Chicago venue. Mar. 8, 2016. (CBS Chicago)

SEE MORE VIDEOS
First, a 1970 boundary treaty governs structures along the Rio Grande and Colorado River at the Mexican border. It requires that structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers, which flow across Texas and 24 miles in Arizona and define the U.S.-Mexican border, according to The International Boundary and Water Commission, a joint U.S.-Mexican agency that administers the treaty.

Trump has said his wall will not need to run the full 2,100-mile length of the border, but even excluding those portions blocked by geographic features, there are serious issues.

In some places, treaty obligations and river flood zones would require the wall be built well into the United States, which would be awkward if the Mexican government is paying for it and overseeing the project. In addition to creating a no man's land between the wall and the actual border, one government or the other would have to buy large amounts of private property as well as land owned by at least one Indian tribe whose territory straddles the border in southern Arizona.

In areas where the border is defined on dry land across New Mexico, most of Arizona and California, structures have to be built so that the wall doesn't obstruct natural run off routes or otherwise induce flooding. Building in those areas can be complicated and costly. In sensitive sand dunes in Southern California, for instance, a "floating fence" had to be built to allow the natural movements of the dunes.

Then, there are the conservation issues. Environmental groups have sued over parts of the existing fence. And, federal regulations could prevent or at least delay or increase costs of construction.

A total of 18 federally protected species may be found along the California border and at least 39 federally endangered, threatened, or candidate species live along the Arizona border, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Then there's the cost.

Numerous fact-checking organizations have taken issue with Trump's estimate that the wall would be built for $10 billion to $12 billion. And, they have rejected his contention that the wall could be funded by reducing the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico. Figures released by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Congressional Research Service indicate that the total cost of the current 650-mile fence has been $7 billion. And that doesn't include maintenance and upkeep.

Trump has insisted that Mexico will pay for the wall, perhaps through fees on money that immigrants send home to their families, tariffs or other means. Fees would be wildly unpopular and tariffs would likely run afoul of the North American Free Trade Agreement. The cost of such tariffs would also ultimately be borne by U.S. consumers.

Getting the Mexican government to pay for it outright is almost certainly wishful thinking.

President Enrique Pena Nieto said Monday that "there is no scenario" under which Mexico would pay for the wall. Former President Vicente Fox put it more bluntly: "I am not going to pay for that f---ing wall."

So there's diplomatic ill will, a question the Congressional Research Service raised in 2009.

"Do the gains in border security outweigh the risk of alienating Mexico and Canada?" it asked. "Should the Mexican or Canadian government's opinions or wishes be taken into account when border fencing is concerned? Given the need to coordinate intelligence and law enforcement activities at the border, should maintaining cordial working relationships with Mexico and Canada take precedence over sealing the border with physical barriers?"

On Wednesday, a group of Republican national security community members, including former government officials, blasted the idea.

"Controlling our border and preventing illegal immigration is a serious issue, but his insistence that Mexico will fund a wall on the southern border inflames unhelpful passions, and rests on an utter misreading of, and contempt for, our southern neighbor," they wrote in an open letter.
Associated Press

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Trump wants to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Can it be done?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump promises to build a great wall along the 2,000-mile U.S.-Mexican border and make Mexico pay for it, but it will be a difficult pledge to fulfill. Can he do it? Sure, a wall can be built, but it's not nearly as simple as Trump says it will be.

# data[].attributes.body
Republican Party

# data[].attributes.body
This flyer symbolizes Hillary Clinton (the letter 'H') putting America forwards (the arrow).

# data[].attributes.body
This ad is about how if Hillary becomes president, dangerous refugees will flood in while criminals stay, keeping the border open. With Donald Trump as president, there are secure borders, keeping terrorists out, keeping America safe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Donald Trump Approved TV Ad "Clinton on Immigration"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Donald Trump Approved TV Ad: "Clinton on Immigration" In Hillary Clinton's America the system stays rigged against Americans. #RiggedSystem Syrian refugees flood in. Illegal immigrants convicted of committing crimes get to stay collecting Social Security benefits, skipping the line. Our border open, it's more of the same, but worse.

# data[].attributes.body
This cartoon reminds people that Gary Johnson used to use marijuana, and that he did not know what Aleppo is. A box in the corner also means, "This is your other option besides Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This appeals to anyone who has decided who they are voting for.

# data[].attributes.body
Hillary Clinton is in telling someone to send classified information to a private server as president. A voodoo doll signifies Hillary's Hatred towards  Bernie Sanders. A note on the bed reminds people of Bill Clinton having affairs with another women. This appeals to anyone not a Democrat.

# data[].attributes.body
Donald Trump has built a wall, not allowing illegal Mexicans in. The Pope is telling Trump off (from their argument) by saying, "And you call yourself a Christian." This would be appealing to Christians and anyone not supporting Trump.

# data[].attributes.body
Independent Party

# data[].attributes.body
Democratic Party