Group items tagged

McConnell is an utter ghoul. Trump, even in the long tradition of criminal presidents, is in a whole 'nother league, and absolutely should be tried for his many, many crimes. The idea that just because he's out of office shouldn't be a factor. That would be like saying a hitman shouldn't be tried for murder just because they quit.

impeaching trump is only going to hurt the Biden admin, the first 100 days are they most important but now with the senate trial people are going to be more focused on that then the thing Biden is doing

If you label Trump as a criminal then you would have to label every other politician as one as well. The fact that he's not in office not only makes him a civilian but trying him at the federal level, just to block him from running again in 2024 is pointless and a waste of congressional time. As well as the American government needs to put the focus on other things than an ex-politician, let's start worrying about getting money to the American people and getting vaccines out.

If the Senate does not vote to impeach Donald Trump it will prove that a President has the power to do whatever he wants as long as his/her party is in the majority. Also, I know that if President Biden was to do the same thing and literally incite a riot on the Capitol then house republicans and republican voters would be calling for impeachment. No matter what party you are, doing what Former President Trump did is disgusting and justice has to be served.

Just like the last impeachment, this one is a waste of time. We need to focus on the US and not Impeaching Trump. Given the current situation, we do not have the time to impeach Trump. If we impeach him it's going to be another 3 months of wasted time just like the last impeachment.

I feel like people tend to judge Trump on how he acts rather than what he has done. Yeah he acts childish but if he's done good things why cant he be credited for it.

if he did this on purpose i think that is absolutely ridiculous.

That is crazy. I can't believe that he would do that.. let alone anyone doing that.l

Pretty sure 47% of the Latino population is on government aid, so, he's just doing what he can to try and have any chance of winning the up coming election. After his comments, I am pretty sure he is going to struggle to gain anymore aide.

even if he did "dye his face brown" i dont see how he think's that would get him more votes. probably was like ember stated that it was terrible spray tan or too much sun.

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

He deserves what he is getting. I think he new what he was doing the whole time. That school should feel horrible for not having good enough security to let him bring in a gun.

what is wrong with this kid. he is crazy!! now the school should know they need more security so this wont happen again.

Wow, This is shocking. Oddly enough all I could think about the whole time was how do attorneys do their jobs? How in the world could you be strong enough to defend something like that. That young man is sick.

That is terrible! At least he got what he deserved. I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could do such things.

That kid is sick and twist. He doesn't deserve 3 life sentences he deserves the death penatly

I don't understand why nobody saw that there was something wrong with this person he isn't exactly sane it seem I mean to go and kill people for one, then to go to court and act like he did why didn't anyone try and stop him.

I think it's okay to cheer for your country when you're trying to support them, but if you're doing it to offend other races, then that's different.

Some people take their patriotism too far. But then again, other races look for reasons to call Americans racist.

Patriotism is huge to Americans. Chanting USA at USA games shows that they are patriotic but when you chant it towards other races because you believe they are not true Americans is a different story. Those people who offended others by chanting that should be punished.

I think representing your country is not offensive. Other people have the option to do the same things in representing what they stand for.

Tanning causes skin cancer. This will benefit health and prevent girls from looking like basketballs

if people want to increase the chance of getting skin cancer then they should be allowed to tan because its a choice just like anything else

I think that its more of a personal choice and if parent let their kids do it so be it. I don't see anything wrong with it.

Not sure of my opinion on this topic yet, but I thought this was an ironic statement... "Doctors, however, said it's not about the money. It's about health." It seems more and more, those two issues are tangled up in our health care debates.

I totally agree with Joe!

Tanning= Skin Cancer I also think that it is their choice they know the risks and It would cause a lot of controversy over money and lets admit white is not cute

Racist^

Brushing your teeth = Weakens you enamel. Should we ban teens from brushing their teeth simply because it can harm them? It's (in my opinion) a matter of choice.

"You just didn't want to stick out in a crowd being white" That's the problem right there. We've got a bunch of teenage girls, whose reasoning capabilities aren't fully developed and who quite literally aren't as capable of comprehending long term effects as adults are who have been convinced that it isn't okay to look like themselves. Our society has been convinced to believe that normal, or natural, can't be attractive. Society convinces women that to be attractive they have to be tan and then offers them an easy way to become tan. A way which, incidentally, causes cancer. But teenagers don't comprehend the risks well, and are only concerned with trying to make themselves attractive. And let's just admit it, orange is not cute.

Also, I don't know about the rest of you, but I think cancer might be a little worse than possibly having weaker enamel.

@Peyton you cant even compare this to brushing your teeth. Brushing your teeth gives you way more benefits over a "weak enamel" I'd rather have a weak enamel rather than have brown teeth with holes in them, and i'd rather be white and cancer free than look like an old leathery football.

Im not racist. but pale is not cute that's why so many people tan.

You should have gone with pale is not cute in the first place, and that would just be weird if everyone tanned. Everyone would look the same in a way.

i think if your tanning the its at your own risk. its not like people haven't heard what could happen if they tan

tanning beds are an unnatural way to tan and people should just wait till summer to tan again but either way tanning in the summer outside or in a bed is still dangerous and will lead to someone getting skin cancer.

Going back to Jessica's comment: I'm a pale teenage girl, but I'm perfectly content with my skin color. Other girls, however, aren't and it's comments like that that force young girls to tan and be at a higher risk of getting skin cancer. I'm not attacking you, Jessica, I'm simply giving my opinion.

I thought that if the field sobriety test was failed or alcohol was on the breath they were instantly subject to breath test or blood test.

i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.

I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.

I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...

I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.

I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.

It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours

a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.

I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?

I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.

I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.

Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"

Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?

I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.

I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?

sounds like a cheap energy source and it help make sure the environment stays clean too.

This is really interesting. The article skims over the possible downsides to this program, though. It mentions that "highly polluting dioxins" that are produced by the process are landfilled again in Norway. What are the effects of the dioxins, and if they are highly polluting, is simply landfilling them safe? Also, importing garbage from Italy would require a lot of resources. I'd like to know the cost vs. benefits of that solution.

Sweden sounds like they actually care about the earth and found a cheap energy source

that sounds amazing! its just time before United States does the same thing

This doesnt sound like a bad thing...

I feel like Trump is like a cyber bully in the fact that when he isn't face to face with Nieto he will say whatever he wants. But when confronted he is mild mannered, unlike when he is on TV giving speeches.

What if foreigners need a place to stay, he can't just kick them out and accept no immigration, and avoid the question, "What about those who haven't committed crimes?" Well maybe if some foreigners have committed crimes, but not all of the crimes were that bad, and what if the immigrants are desperate, or need something, or again, a place.

Trump wants to remove millions of illegals, but like the passage says what would he do with the ones the haven't committed a crime? The ones that have done crime should be removed, but the ones that haven't should continue living here.

Trump said in his own words that when he becomes president he wants to exile the millions of illegal immigrants from the US and that if this succeeds he would change the world completely. Any illegal immigrants that are arrested will be deported as well.

I like what he is trying to do by helping those people, but I also think that it isn't worth it. It happened so long ago that they should bring up all of the pain again. Everyone might not sue them but if so many people do then that sounds to me like an unfair trial kind of thing. A lot of money against them I don't think they should get this law passed. Also that may hurt the whole city and the whole city didn't want those attacks to happen, only the extremist. Taking away that money from the city can make it fail.

I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America

I believe that Donald Trump was the right choice for time magazine. Everyone has their point of view on him whether it is good or bad. I think that he will actually do good things for this country when he gets elected. He is on the cover of time magazine because they thought he had the greatest influence.

I feel like it was the right choice because in the very first paragraph time says "This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year." Not saying he has done amazing or horrible things he has had the greatest influence on people and I agree on that.

I agree with Landon, Donald Trump deserved to be named person of the year because set his plan to become president and "To Make America Great Again". His ideas may hurt our relationships with other countries, but he is focused to help our country first.

I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.

I would agree with Times choice to pick Trump because as it was stated at the very beginning of the article they named the person with the greatest influence.. For better or worse. Which I would agree with, whether or not you agree with Trump or you believe to deserves Presidency or not, he was one of the top influencers in 2016. You couldn't watch the news without hearing about him. He was very impactful in politics and news in the past year. So whether or not you support him he was one of the most influential people in the last year.

I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.

I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.

I have to say that I any happy that Trump did became President, he should the people to not think so lightly of him. He will do good for our country.

Everybody has their view on who he is and what he is going to do. Although I don't agree that he should be on TIME person of the year, because there are others who deserve it just as much as him.

I think him becoming "person of the year" is a little risky because Donald Trump really hasn't shown us, Americans, what his in capable of yet. Obviously he was capable of becoming president of the United States but what if were unsatisfied with his decisions in the upcoming year? Will Time Magazine regret making him person of the year?

Not surprised he won person of the year, I do think we had better options and many people would agree that other would deserve this more than trump.

I think he shouldn't have gotten "person of the year" because of what he said towards women and people of color. But other people may have think he deserved it. It's just a different opinion, but I wonder how this whole thing will turn out.

Just in general there are many apposing factors about Trump, good ones are him being president and is going to help out communities and so on. Bad ones are Trump ends up being racist and sexist.In my personal opinion, there are many more apposing factors of bad and he is just a terrible person. But many can argue.

Trump shouldn't have gotten person of the year. What he says about women and people of color and the way he treats them. That's not what the person of the year should be doing. Some people are for Trump and that's okay because that's their opinion. He'll be able to help out communities but many are against him for being racist and sexist. In my opinion he is a terrible person.

Trump is the first president without government or military background to go with them. It's a new feeling in the office that some agree with and some don't.

I think that whoever won the election would have won person of the year. Trump won the election and ended up winning the person of the year because he was influential, probably talked about the most and while he was supposed to fall out of the presidential race early on, he eventually won the presidency.

i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.

I feel like people are so focused on who he is as a person and now who he can become, we can't change the fact that he is president whoever we can accept it.

I really hope Donald can do good things for this country. I hope and wish that he will take back the bad and cruel things he has said about women, disabled people, people of color, etc,. I want him to keep his promises in making this country better. But I know he won't. I can't read his mind or read the future but from the looks of it, this can not turn out well. He should not have been chosen for people of the year. A great person, who is open-minded, strong and brave, accepting, a hero even, would make person of the year. But, instead, we all chose a sexist and racist man who has been elected for president. Cool.

I agree with their decision to make him the person of the year because he deserved it and people all over the country were influenced by him in either a good or a bad way.

I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year

I think that although many people think that it is not apt to be president but has many skills in the part of negotiating and thinking about whether it is a good investment or bad, it should give the opportunity to experience its way of working and if it gives the quality Appropriate to accept it because everything must be for the good of the country and of the people. And truly being president is very difficult and with a lot of organization and choose good decisions .

Although I don't agree with how Trump spends his existence in this world I do think that it is appropriate to name him person of the year. The article said that he wasn't necessarily given the title because he has done good. I think this is a good title for him because a lot of 2016 attention has fallen on him, he has impacted a majority of America and weather he makes people happy or unhappy they were still giving him a reaction, so yes I think it is appropriate to name Donald Trump person of the year.

There have two different attempts at this in Arkansas and North Dakota, were found unconstitutional in court when they tried to make it a law. It hasn't been said if the 'heartbeat' abortion bill will apply to victim's of rape or in the case of incest. There are too many variables involved to make a clear cut decision.

I feel like this bill will cause women to do abortions illegally and go back to old methods. In one of the paragraph it said they wont do abortions even if its rape or incest. it gives me a little hope that he said he is pro-life when it come to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

I think that if someone was raped they should be able to have an abortion because that could affect their life in a lot of bad ways if they had a baby from someone that raped them.

I can see both the pros and cons of this bill. I hate the thought of ending a life before it has barely begun, but if a woman had the reason of abortion because she was a rape victim 6 weeks might not be a long enough time to reveal that she is pregnant. Women are scarred from these experiences and by telling her she has to keep proof of the memory may be worse than abortion. A new life is suppose to be celebrated not forced into someone's body. I don't like abortion, but I can see why some women would.

Everything that Macy said, I agree with. I don't agree with abortion but the reasoning behind it of rape makes sense and is an exception. Keeping something that'll remind the mother is torturing herself, again celebration not force.

I agree with Macy. I also think that abortion is a bad thing and you shouldn't be able to end someones life just because you weren't responsible enough, but what if someone was rapped and had to live with that because they didn't realize they were pregnant until after 20 something weeks. I think it's unfair in those situations.

I agree with everything Macy said. 6 weeks may not be enough time to fine out you're pregnant. If it was rape women should be able to abort the child. No woman should have to have a that mans baby. Would scar her for life.

Any actions at this time should be considered very crucial to the future affairs between China and America. Depending on his actions, Donald Trump could either start a war or actually settle this issue, however I feel if he continues to aggravate China they will respond in less-than-desired ways.

I think Trump should stick with the one China policy because he shouldn't risk losing the already steady relationship with China

I don't think Trump is being very wise slamming China the way he is.The One China policy states that Taiwan is apart of China regardless of having their own president.I agree with Nate, we already have a stable relationship with China. Why give it up?

I believe it is a serous concern because once Trump is president what will he do? Is he gonna go to war with china? Because he questioned weather he thought Taiwan was part of one China or not. People assume that he would go into war cause that's the type of guy he is.

China and Taiwan have different presidents therefore they are different countries even though China believes that they own Taiwan. Trump should be able to have a conversation with the President of Taiwan without the President of China getting uptight about it. We can trade with China and Taiwan just like we have been. Taiwan and China are both very good for us in that they produce lots of things that are shipped to the United States of America to sell. China shouldn't be concerned that he took a call from the Taiwan President. Is Trump really going to risk trade with China by not adhering to the "One China" Policy?

I agree with landon on the idea that both countries are beneficial to our success and on the idea that we should be able to talk to another country without china getting angry. But I feel as if the China policy adheres to China and China only, there is nothing that states that we as a country must appeal to every other countries policies.

Trump is going to make america great again. CNN is just trying to get stuff fired up about Trump. Trump has the right to do whatever. From what my understanding is china is taking over the market. Trump wont take this whole thing down maybe work around it, but not completely take it down, and ignore it....

I think that China and Taiwan are 2 separate countries because they both have a president. But I feel like Donald Trump is agreeing with China now so we don't go to war with them.

With Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, I don't think the wall will even go up. So we should worry less about walls and more about the important things.

I agree with Makenzie, don't worry about the wall but worry about what's important

If he does what he always said in a way that benefits each of the citizens we work and live in a good way always striving for what we have is a good idea but if it is to harm people and thus humiliate them I am not made a good idea

I agree with McKenzie, even though the wall has been a topic for a few months now... people are realizing this is getting close to happening... I don't blame Mexico for not wanting to help pay for the wall. It's probably not even gonna happen anyways. Trump needs to work on making people happy and "making America great again".

It seems like Trump is trying to get to much accomplished at one time, he's not focusing on one problem, so nothing is going to get done. My problem with the wall is that it doesn't solve the problem people will always find a way in so unless we are putting a wall up around the whole US we will still deal with people trying to get in.

Even though trump said he's going to build a wall people are still going to get over it. Unless he is planning on putting a wall all around. I think he's just gonna make it worst for us, he should do the little things first and work his way up with the big things, because what is he changes his mind about what he's doing.

I agree with kim, he is doing everything so fast hes not really focusing or thinging about anything as long as it gets done.

Donald has been doing everything he said he was going to but i dont think he is seeing what he is doing because he is doing everything so fast. i also dont think he will put the wall up because mexico wont pay. people are going to find a way around the wall too

He is a man of his word, the word most people voted for, so that means he is going to do what he says and listen to the people.

I agree with Justice because people are just going to find another way over or around the wall. Illegals are still going to jump the border and some of them will still make it into the United States. I don't understand why he is trying to do everything so fast. He does know that he has four years right? Maybe someone should inform him of that. The wall is a pointless thing especially if he's trying to get Mexico to pay for it.

the wall is not a pointless thing. He will get mexico to pay for it. He is a man that keeps to his word. He is not bought and paid for by lobbyist, and super PACS. The wall is a great idea. Just remember would you want to take in some homeless person into your house? thats what a front door is for. that is why we need a wall.

Mexico will not pay for the wall he's insane for thinking that they're going to help stay out. All he's doing is humiliating immigrants and kind of bullying them. If he plans on bullying people all four years he has then he's not going to do anything for us and that should worry people.

I agree with Landon. Mexico is most likely not going to be willing to pay for the way so therefore its pointless. People are still going to try and do what they want, a wall is not going to stop them.

Mexico might not pay. But Abby, you say he is humiliating immigrants, he is welcoming to other foreigners he just dislikes illegal immigrants, it's like somebody broke into your house and is living in your attic without you knowing. He is blocking immigration from the middle east not because he hates all muslims but because most terrorism is from that general area.

I think the general concept of what he's trying to accomplish is a good idea, but of course there's plenty of flaws in the system. Mexico's obviously not going to be on board for covering the funds necessary to build the wall, and neither would any country in their position. You're going to have plenty of Mexican citizens who are totally against this and might even try to wreak havoc on the project which will only stir the pot more. On the other hand, he's making an effort to keep illegal immigrants out and follow through to his word by building the wall.

I agree with Landon, Mexico might not pay for the wall. If Mexico doesn't pay for the wall to go up what are the chances that the wall is actually going to be put up?

Mexico will pay for the wall if the like it or not. America will just stop sending them financial aid that we give to them every year. There is many ways to get Mexico to do what we want and we finally have a president that will stop the illegal immigration and do what he promised he was going to do. Amen!

I think it is insane that Trump proposed the idea of building a wall, and now is trying to make Mexico pay for it. Why would they? How does that even make sense? If Mexico doesn't pay-which they wont, American tax payers will be the ones paying for it. And it is a multi billion dollar project.