The 2016 presidential elections are upon us and for some of us young folk, myself included, this is the first presidential election we will be voting in. It’s an exciting time! We’re fulfilling our civic duty for the first time, making choices that will impact our futures in this country, and taking part in the democratic process we hold so near and dear to our hearts in this country. So, why am I angry? Because, for the first year I get to have a say in who gets to be president, all of my choices feel like a bad joke.

Starting with everyone’s favorite front runner, Donald Trump, let’s take a look at why I just can’t buy into voting for these candidates in my first election.

Where do you even begin when it comes to Trump–that he’s a big bully? Whether it’s attacking other candidates with rude remarks, threatening to ban Muslims from the U.S., or refusing to denounce the KKK, Trump has been a misogynistic, racist candidate since day one. One thing that’s certain is that he wouldn’t stop this abhorrent behavior as president. Whether you think his policy plans to build a wall in between the U.S. and Mexico are funny or just think it would be hilarious to elect this man president, think about exactly what Trump as a leader would mean for America before you cast that ballot–it’s not a great thought, folks.

If you just aren’t quite willing to jump aboard the TrumpTrain, it looks like Ted Cruz might be your next viable option, right? Wrong.

If Cruz is right about one thing, it’s that the Democrats sure are laughing at this pool of Republican nominees. Aside from rumors that Cruz may be the zodiac killer–which he hasn’t denied yet–and viral videos of how uncomfortably he acts around his children, what are Cruz’s actual plans for running the country? Well, he’s an active supporter of gun rights in our country, despite the fact that we’re currently plagued with firearm deaths. He also plans to increase deportation of immigrants, which is slightly better than building a gigantic wall between the US and Mexico. At the end of the day, the biggest hesitation when it comes to Ted Cruz is the fact that his facial expressions always just kind of look like he is struggling to escape an unsettling situation. There’s just something so unappealing about the thought of having to spend the next four years feeling uncomfortable everytime you look at the leader of your country’s face.

Next up on the chopping block, Marco Rubio.

Now, Rubio is one of the less outwardly mockable candidates of this year’s election. Other than his weird water drinking habits and some odd Nazi metaphors, Rubio has managed to stay pretty gaffe free, so, why not vote for Rubio? For starters, he’s basically out of the race. Even Rubio’s campaign has acknowledged how much of an underdog he is at this point.

The media may treat me like an underdog, but I’m an underdog that can win. https://t.co/i9gFxAgwK3

— Marco Rubio (@marcorubio) March 2, 2016

But even with the underdog point aside, Rubio’s staunch conservative social views are pretty off-putting and he certainly doesn’t hesitate to bring them up at every event he can. Plus, in case you hadn’t heard, Marco Rubio can’t even manage to do the job he has right now, with a very low voting rate in the Senate. Sure, campaigning and being a representative at the same time may be tough but come on, Rubio.

And finally, John Kasich.

Kasich might be alright if it weren’t for all the foot-in-his-mouth comments he manages to make on a daily basis. Some of the best? Most recently, his wonderful commentary on women:

How did I get elected? Nobody was — I didn’t have anybody for me. We just got an army of people and many women who left their kitchens to go out and go door to door and put yard signs up for me.

No woman should be “leaving her kitchen” to head out to the polls and vote for Kasich this primary season. Making sure that pie comes out as perfect as possible is way more important than giving another misogynistic male candidate validation.

There are also two contenders left on the left: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Compared to some of the Republican nominees, these two seem like saints for the most part, but they each has their flaws.

Bernie Sanders, on one side, is pretty much a socialist.

While it’s easy to side with Bernie on so many issues–like so many American youths have–his plans to accomplish his goals may not be what this country really needs. His tax plans, which would be great for evening out economic inequality, could cause serious economic problems in our country overall. There’s a lack of acknowledgement of the real world implications of a lot of his policies and, without that acknowledgment, his liberal plans feel a lot like a fairytale that could never come true.

What’s so wrong with Hillary Clinton?

Much like this gif suggests, she’s boring. Clinton has a history of flip-flopping on key issues and seems like she cares about things just to attract voters who care about the same issues. She’s also known to be hawkish on foreign policy, has not taken a strong stance against fracking, and will always have Bill Clinton’s scandals and policies looming over her. All in all, Clinton may be the best pick for president, but it’s because she’s the lesser of so many evils–is that really the way people should feel when they’re picking our next president?

Maybe I’m just too picky, or maybe the presidential candidate field really isn’t that great–who knows. It just feels a little underwhelming and infuriating that the first time I get to decide who to put in the White House, it’s going to be based on a “pick the person you hate the least” type strategy. I really wanted someone who I could stand behind unabashedly, but that may just be asking a little bit too much of today’s bipartisan mess of a political system. At the end of the day, the important thing is staying informed and making sure you know your facts before heading to the voting booths this November. And, until the dream presidential candidate appears out of thin air, here’s to whoever can beat Trump!

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Angry About This Year’s Presidential Candidates? You’re Not Alone appeared first on Law Street.

Airbnb is an innovative service for modern travel. It focuses heavily on community, flexibility, and the power of the internet. For many travelers, it’s been a great new tool. But not all governments feel the same way. It was founded in San Francisco, usually the home for inventive new apps and websites, in 2008. However, the fact that San Francisco is Airbnb’s birthplace doesn’t mean that everyone in the city loves it. Much to the contrary — Airbnb’s strong presence in San Francisco has led to a political fight for the ages in the Bay Area.

Airbnb is essentially a way to rent out living space for short-term use. Often people who have extra bedrooms, second apartments, or some other space will post it on the site. They are registered and checked by Airbnb. Then, a traveler can choose a site that fits their needs. Airbnb allows the host and the guest to communicate. Much of the site is community-driven — after you stay with an Airbnb host you are asked to rate them, and they are asked to rate their guests. That allows others to make informed choices about the listings they choose to stay at and Airbnb guests that hosts choose to approve.

Full disclosure, I’ve used the site, with great success, as have many of my friends. Airbnb is often lauded as the Millennial way to travel — a combination of couch surfing, social media, and budget flexibility. And it’s worked — Airbnb has been enormously successful. A recent valuation put the space-sharing pioneer’s worth at approximately $13 billion.

Yet the history of Airbnb in San Francisco remains a curious one. This week, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to officially legalize operations like Airbnb, but with some caveats. The type of room-sharing that Airbnb is built on will be allowed, but the site will need to collect the same kind of taxes as hotels or other commercial lodging venues. There will also be more oversight from the city — certain registration for short-term rentals will be required. Furthermore, people renting Airbnb spaces have some rules about how often they have to live in the rental space. Those against the bill argued that it was way too restrictive and would make it too tough on those who want to sublet in a non-Airbnb related sense.

Mayor Ed Lee still needs to sign the bill, of course, but it’s a step forward on a fascinatingly gridlocked issue. As the Board President, as well as the one who proposed the legislation, David Chiu explained the Board’s motivation, saying,

We have seen an explosion of short-term rentals without any regulatory or enforcement structure to handle this new activity. … This is a balanced, reasonable approach.

Interestingly, invested in the debate was California Senator Diane Feinstein, once San Francisco’s mayor. In light of the contentious debate, she wrote an op-ed in the San Francisco Gate slamming the proposed law and arguing that the city should not legalize Airbnb in any sense whatsoever. However, the Board went ahead and approved the bill anyway.

It’s a fascinating question that many technology-driven businesses — Uber, Lyft, etc. — have had to answer. When you operate in a non-tangible setting, online, what laws govern you? Airbnb certainly had a victory with the new San Francisco law, even though it may force some hosts to make their rentals more expensive to deal with the taxes. But for now San Francisco will continue to provide affordable, unique, and flexible lodging.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Venturist via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post AirBnB Winning Over San Francisco, With Some Rules appeared first on Law Street.

Networking is a powerful tool for millennials. For example, the other day I left class and I was heading to my next activity. I usually ignore the people who stand by the door trying to sell stuff, but this week they had freebies. Obviously I couldn’t pass the opportunity for some free goodies, so I started talking to the people at the table. Next thing I know, I’m planning to attend an information session for a possible internship next summer.

Had I not stopped at this table and began talking to the recruiters, I never would have found out about the internship possibility. Making small talk with the recruiters was easy–they had their purpose and I had mine. Sometimes, small talk is not that easy. You may feel awkward and pressured to say something intelligent, which might make you clam up.

There’s no need to fear small talk. Networking is a part of every millennial’s professional development and with these tips, you’ll be sure to succeed.

Firstly, shake off the layer of anxiety you carry with you. In a professional environment, there is no need to stress about small talk. Before you attend the conference or meeting in which you will have to chat to succeed, mentally prepare yourself. If breathing exercises calm you down, breathe deep my friends. Prepare some solid talking points that you are willing to discuss–what have you read lately, where have you traveled, and what plans do you have for the next weekend or holiday?

You can practice small talking with your classmates, professors and even distant friends. The more you create casual (and appropriate) conversation, the more you will hone your ability to make natural small talk.

When you’re chatting with a prospective employer at a networking event, you should prepare a few topics beforehand. Whether this be a topic that is specific to your field of work or a general trend in the news, this will make you less nervous when the time comes to small talk. It’s always better to come prepared than freeze up on the spot.

A good way to start off a chat is to start off with a declaration. This helps to avoid an awkward situation if you are unprepared for an unsatisfactory answer. If you start off with a declaration, it stimulates conversation and can help connect you with the person you are speaking with. You can declare something as simple as, “the National Gallery of Art opened up a new exhibit today. I’ve heard it’s supposed to be amazing.” As long as the topic you choose is relatable to the people you will be conversing with, this declaration will function as a conversation stimulant.

Asking conversational questions can help lead you to others for networking purposes. The Week suggests asking the three golden questions at the end of any professional meeting or encounter:

1. How can I help you?
2. What ideas do you have for me?
3. Who else do you know that I should talk to?

Showing your audience you are an active listener is important. If you are talking to a possible future employer, you should show them you are listening and thinking about what they have to say. This will show that you value what he or she has to say and can be a powerful characteristic to showcase.

Next time you’re at a work convention, professional conference, or networking event, use some of these tips to prepare yourself better for small talk. Making small talk efficient and creating a connection with your audience is at the core of networking. These days, networking is the lifeblood of many professionals’ careers, and a valuable skill for any millennial.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Small Talk Doesn’t Have to Be Scary appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever found yourself reading a job description and asking who in the world is capable of honing so many skills? With the rise of technology and demand for well-rounded employees, Millennials often feel discouraged just by reading job descriptions. According to the Harvard Business Review, nearly 50 percent of men and women choose not to apply to certain jobs because they feel they do not fulfill all the qualifications.

Entry-level applicants face the worst of these unrealistic qualifications. Many job postings listed as “entry-level” require applicants to have a couple years of experience in addition to their college degrees. Doesn’t that defeat the whole purpose of the label?

Quartz debunks the usual perception of job postings. Companies often list many skills that would earn applicants brownie points in interviews. In addition to listing the things they need, hiring managers list skills they could use in the future or assets they are considering implementing. But once hiring managers start listing those bonuses, they often get carried away and the list grows longer and longer. When applicants see a long list of skills labeled “required,” they often feel discouraged and move on to the next application.

Fear not applicants! Hiring managers are looking for humans, not robots. If you have the core skills for your profession and you are capable of presenting those skills properly, you’re golden. Companies would rather hire people who have several relevant skills, confidence, and a good attitude. So unless you’re a robot who can learn HTML code in 24 hours or become fluent in a language overnight, don’t sweat the small stuff.

When reading job descriptions, it can be truly difficult to pick apart what is required and what is fluff. Scott Purcell, a technology recruiter, gave Quartz a few tips for deciphering job descriptions.

…a good rule of thumb is that the further you get from the core of the job’s actual function, the further down a list of skills something is, and the newer the technology or the skills term is, the more likely it’s what he calls a “nice to have” rather than a true requirement.

Keep in mind, companies still like to check off as many boxes as possible when it comes to applicants’ skill sets. When Jimmy and Johnny are competing for the same position and Jimmy racks up more checks, he’s got the position over Johnny.

Yes, job descriptions can be intimidating.  Rejection can be scary, even embarrassing, but what’s the harm in trying? So, when you are considering a job description but you’re not sure if you’re really the right fit because you don’t meet every single qualification, chill. If you can, reach out to someone who works in the industry or at the company and ask how realistic the description is. Find out more information and if it’s a position you’re really interested in then it just might be worth the time and effort to apply. Don’t let job descriptions intimidate or discourage you. Take the chance and you might be pleasantly surprised.

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Millennials: Don’t Let Job Descriptions Discourage You appeared first on Law Street.