Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged go

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
michaelaheilesen

Red-leaning states say yes to a higher minimum wage - 12 views

money.cnn.com/...er-minimum-wage-2014-elections

shared by michaelaheilesen on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  • michaelaheilesen on 05 Nov 14
     
    Based on the results tallied by 1:15 a.m. EST, voters in Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota -- all red-leaning states -- had approved proposals to raise their state-level minimum wages over the next few years. Arkansas: The minimum wage will rise from $6.25 an hour now to $8.50 by 2017.
  • ...9 more comments...
  • audrey23 on 05 Nov 14
     
    I say go for it, it's about time the minimum gets raised while employees actually work hard
  • amcclain946 on 12 Dec 14
     
    YES! I think raising the minimum wage is a GREAT idea. Once some states do it, more tend to follow. I think raising the minimum wage will really benefit part time workers because many work part-time hours but only make enough to pay bills. This raise may allow many to not live paycheck-to-paycheck.
  • djones036 on 12 Dec 14
     
    I think the minimum wage should be raised because the minimum wage we have now doesn't get you as far as it used to and people need more money to meet standards of living.
  • Erin Wolff on 15 Dec 14
     
    I think this is a wonderful idea. Raising the minimum wage will allow people that work part-time hours that have bills and needs that need to be met, will have money to support themselves and have a little extra support money instead of them wondering if their next paycheck is gonna cover everything.
  • fwyldes753 on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't know if raising the minimum wage would be to good of an idea. Although yes most high schoolers and some adult would really enjoy it. But because that raises the businesses have to pay more, which means they will raise there prices, and we will be back in this situation of people wanting it raised. And we can't just raise it every year.
  • austenclaar on 15 Dec 14
     
    Raising the minimum wage to 9 or 10$ would be great if everything stayed the same. But according to our government that's not possible. Prices would go up and places would stop hiring. Even making 10$ an hour most likely still isn't enough for someone to live off of. Either way it's almost impossible for things to change for the better.
  • Mia Wheeler on 15 Dec 14
     
    I agree that the minimum wage should be higher because it allows us to pay for things by ourselves and a lot of part-time workers are college students and they have a lot of bills that they have to pay for school so I think that would help them out a lot.
  • kquinlan591 on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't think minimum wage should be raised because that would only make the prices of everything go up to. Including the price of living. I think that if people want to make more money they should work hard for it and get a better education.
  • bllandon on 15 Dec 14
     
    I don't agree with raising the minimum wage at all. Once minimum wage gets raised nationally, prices will go up and workers will be layed off. The people who would still be at the store would have to have more hours as well since they wouldn't have as many people there often.
  • bdiaz971 on 15 Dec 14
     
    Minimum wage should be raised, but with the increase of money gained prices will also go up. If people start making a lot more money then businesses will respond by raising prices to make more profit. People should be able to live off minimum wage but that is not the case right now, they earn way too little.
  • mhart079 on 15 Dec 14
     
    They should not raise minimum wage for the fact that everything else will also go up. If I can go work at a restaurant and make good money, why would I go get a college degree?
Bryan Pregon

Trump and his wife Melania test positive for coronavirus | Reuters - 8 views

www.reuters.com/...-for-coronavirus-idUSKBN26N0K4

shared by Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Oct 20
     
    Global reactions have ranged from "Get well soon" to "I told you so" to even more blunt "wishes" for Trump. Remember that we are discussing this in an educational context for those who are going to comment on this situation. How do you think this is going to affect the election with only 32 days until the election?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • eoneal271 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think that a lot of people are happy t0 see this happen based on what he says about coronavirus. Personally, I do not think that it will make a difference in what he says about coronavirus. The reason that I believe this is because Trump is most likely going to survive coronavirus because he is getting the best medical care around. I think after that he will still talk about how it is still a hoax becuase he survived it.
  • emilysharp on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump didn't believe in COVID-19 until it actually happened to him and I hope that he will be more empathetic toward Americans going through this too. It did say he was symptomatic and that he is at high risk so there's a possibility that he might not make it.
  • mmailey052 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I think now that Trump has COVID-19 his political campaign will be impacted. He will need to be in quarantine for at least 2 weeks and with so few days left until the election, his campaign will be at least a little bit impacted. Even though he has COVID-19 I don't think his outlook on it will change at all.
  • laurenhansen168 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope now that Trump has COVID-19 he will be more willing to help other people with it and now be able to understand what others are going through.
  • trinitytallman on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope that Trump is more willing to help people and realizes that coronavirus is a serious thing, now that he has it.
  • aurora216 on 05 Oct 20
     
    I hope that Trump realizes that now that he has COVID-19 that it's a serious thing and helps other people with it.
  • olijohnson on 05 Oct 20
     
    Its funny this happened right after he was making fun of biden for wearing a mask
  • jessicasolorio on 05 Oct 20
     
    Hopefully, Trump is less insensitive to those who have COVID or have a family member who has had it and realizes how real and bad the virus can really be.
  • ethompson038 on 09 Oct 20
     
    I think it's ironic how after he's been saying for months that masks don't work and that the pandemic is a hoax that he contracts COVID. But even though he does have corona, he still isn't taking it serious. He's taking off his mask two days after the diagnosis in front of a sea of reporters and I just think it's despicable.
  • gozzello162 on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump with remain ignorant to the real effects of COVID and will continue to promote unhealthy recommendations to the public. I don't think having COVID will change him at all as he continues to display his normal narcissistic and dangerous behaviors that he always had
  • jcollins438 on 12 Oct 20
     
    It sounds like he is starting to take precautions and is learning from previous choices he may have made.
  • bradenlasale on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think that Trump is going to continue to take advice from the scientists but he is going to do what he feels is needed to "protect himself" from the Corona Virus. This doesn't mean he isn't going to not follow the ppe guidelines fro when in public.
  • kennalee04 on 12 Oct 20
     
    I think it's good he got it because he's learning how serious it really is. sometimes it takes the first-hand experience to realize the truth about something. I think this is a slap in the face to some of the republicans that didn´t believe it.
  • cmacias539 on 03 Nov 20
     
    I think it's kinda like karma for making fun of joe for wearing his mask all the time, although it does make him look bad because the president of our country makes fun of people for protecting themselves and taking covid seriously.
Bryan Pregon

Jill Stein Recount Fund Raises Close to $7 Million - 23 views

fortune.com/...jill-stein-recount

shared by Bryan Pregon on 30 Nov 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 30 Nov 16
     
    "Jill Stein is on track to raise twice as much for an election recount effort than she did for her own failed Green Party presidential bid."
  • ...30 more comments...
  • Landon Mohr on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think that Jill Stein is just having the recount to be able to raise money so that she can donate it to her own campaign if she decides to run in the next election.
  • katelyndewaele on 30 Nov 16
     
    I feel like Jill Stein is just using this for farther popularity and to help with her campaign if she ever decided to run for president.
  • lauren rambo on 30 Nov 16
     
    She has a right to do this since this country thrives on our freedom. I don't think she should be suing states just because she wants a recount though. If a state doesn't want to vote again isn't that also in our rights? I don't know what all of Jill Steins motives are and though I disagree with her, she still has the right to ask for a recount however the turnout will be.
  • Faith Otten on 30 Nov 16
     
    Whatever her reasons for fighting for a recount are, she is gaining attention. Whether the recount comes out how she wants it to or not, Stein will have benefited. That being said it's understandable why she feels the need to raise money for it.
  • chloesapienza on 30 Nov 16
     
    Donald Trump denounced the Stein recount effort as "ridiculous" and "a scam." and I disagree with what he said. It is not a scam because she is using the donations for how much the recount will cost.
  • ashley926 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.
  • cspurgin on 30 Nov 16
     
    I believe that Jill Stein has the right to demand a recount and has good intentions for such sudject, but I also belive that when it all follows through, that it will not change anything for the future.
  • gracie1bradley on 30 Nov 16
     
    "By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again." I think that even though she didn't win, it's a good opportunity to help her in other ways. I also think its a good idea because she'll then have a backup if she runs again.
  • russellboi on 30 Nov 16
     
    The article said that she would donate all excess donations to election reform systems, weather or not this turns out to be true remains to be seen. Regardless the changes would be considered extremely important by many of today's voters who think that the electoral college ruins democracy and therefore don't vote. If the election recount doesn't result in evidence of fraud or tampering, then the excess money should be put to good use regardless.
  • jacega on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think that jill Stein is gonna earn all this money for the next upcoming election . She is going to donate the money to her election fund.
  • nate kliegl on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money
  • haleyborgaila on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Lauren because she shouldn't be suing states because they don't want to do a recount, it's our choice if we do our not. We picked who we wanted and that's who we got she's just using this for publicity and to help her if she runs again.
  • delaniehubbard on 30 Nov 16
     
    Jill Stein has the right to a recount whether shes in it for the money or not, shes someone who can afford and has the power to do so opposed to some citizens who want to have a recount but obviously don't have that kind of money or power. If she does prove the voting ballets wrong after to recount, she will not only have gotten Hillary president, but she is going to increase her popularity for her own benefit in the future. Even if she doesn't achieve her goal she will have gained attention in some sort of way.
  • dallastomasello on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.
  • kplowman702 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Landon and Lauren, she's gaining attention for herself and it's not right for her to try and sue states because they don't want to recount.
  • Austin Webster on 30 Nov 16
     
    Jill Stein is just doing it for more publicity so when or if she runs again in 2020 it will make her look better and be the more popular vote
  • jwelch096 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Faith, because if she wants to run again, she is already sorta popular, and will have more attention drawn to her than she does now, ans she may be a candidate with the media partially on her side.
  • mitchell_johnson on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think Jill Stein is just using this to raise money for herself and her party and once they get enough, they'll drop the whole thing and use the money for other reasons. Her reasons for a recount are idiotic and it will prove that Donald Trump won the election fair and square.
  • jakecolburn on 30 Nov 16
     
    This is pretty cool. Even if the end result does not chance the ability to call for a recount is cool to me, it allows for total certainty in the voting process and gives Jill stein a potential platform for the next election. Assuming she runs as a third party all the publicity she can gain to validate a 3rd party is a positive.
  • amiahdoty on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.
  • kim bagshaw on 30 Nov 16
     
    I understand why she is doing it however it is a choice and could what she is doing reflect her reaction to who won? her intentions may be more to change who won rather than seeing if the votes are justified
  • kelsi836 on 30 Nov 16
     
    Jill Stein has the right to call for a recount if she wants to. People amuse too quickly that she is only in it for her self. And yes, while doing so will give her some sort of an advantage in one way or another, she is doing this to show once and for all who won the election. If this happens, it could change who are president will be.
  • madishovan on 30 Nov 16
     
    delanie hi and i agree
  • lmcdowell956 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.
  • trump16 on 30 Nov 16
     
    This is not even worth it, because Trump won fair. Jill is just like Hillary. Sure she has the right to do so, but its not going to do anything Trump won deal with it america!.
  • mwheeler21 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I don't know anything about this election, but I think that if she wants to keep doing this more power to her, I don't think that it will change anything. I partly think she is doing this for attention and to get herself known so that she may be able to move up in her career eventually, but I think she knows that the recount won't matter.
  • ebouvier878 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.
  • Alex Thacker on 30 Nov 16
     
    She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything
  • amonge914 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree that Jill has the right to call for a recount. I really hope that in doing that she is using her power for good, and standing up for what she believes in rather than to get attention. If she's fighting for what she believes in, then you go girl!
  • tbrockman469 on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.
  • nick perry on 30 Nov 16
     
    I agree with Alex, It will make her look good but in the end nothing is going to change and Trump is still going to remain President of the United States.
  • agrosas on 30 Nov 16
     
    I think that she is wrong for doing this, no one ever did this when Obama became President and there were people that did not what him in President. So why is it so bad Trump is going to be President, there are people that ant him as the President.
sgunderson048

Mexican President: We will not pay for the wall - 9 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by sgunderson048 on 26 Jan 17 - No Cached
  • sgunderson048 on 26 Jan 17
     
    How dumb can Trump be? How does he expect Mexico to pay for a wall that could potentially cost them billions?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • kplowman702 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I understand why Trump wants to build a wall but why does he expect Mexico to pay for it when it's clear they don't want the wall to be built in the first place.
  • kim bagshaw on 26 Jan 17
     
    Why does he think building a wall is going to accomplish anything? If they are determined to get the US than it will happen whether we want it or not. We just have to find a way to know if they are here to harm us or are at peace with us and just want a better life.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Kim ^ the wall isn't going to do anything because if someone wants to come to America they're going to anyways
  • lmcdowell956 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Mexico shouldn't have to help pay for the wall to be built. Donald Trump wants the wall to be built so I think that he should pay for it.
  • tbrockman469 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Mallori and Kim. Its his ideas to keep the Mexicans out of the U.S. Why would he even think their president would help build it?
  • agrosas on 26 Jan 17
     
    I get what Trump is doing, he does not what people to just come over to America from Mexico but making them pay, I don't think that will happen. The people in Mexico will find other whys to get in still, we just have to make hard for them to get in just like Canada is hard to get in.
  • anonymous on 26 Jan 17
     
    I think trump's idea of having a wall built is dumb because people from mexico will still try to get over that wall. And its not fail to all the people who got deported and there's still people here living illegally. I mean they aren't really doing anything wrong, or hurting anybody.
  • ogomez1025 on 26 Jan 17
     
    I understand that Mexico should help pay for the wall it wants and proposes to do President Trump because that way it would help a lot in the control of immigrant people
  • bayleefox1 on 26 Jan 17
     
    i agree with mallori, i dont think the wall will stop much
  • mwheeler21 on 26 Jan 17
     
    Mexico's president has every right to deny this wall, and Trump insisting that he pay for something against his wants is absurd.
  • amonge914 on 26 Jan 17
     
    If you are building a fence for your house, does your neighbor pay it? I don't think so and neither should Mexico. If he wants a wall so badly, then he can take it out of the taxes of all the people who voted for him in the first place.
  • lauren rambo on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Ayin, Trump can't force Mexico to pay for something he wants.
  • Landon Mohr on 30 Jan 17
     
    I agree with Ayin and Lauren. Trump can't make Mexico pay for the Wall and if I was Mexico I wouldn't be paying for it anyways. It's not like they helping the illegal immigrants from jumping the border. They are trying to prevent it just as much as the United States is. If he wants the wall so badly then he can build it himself.
  • nick perry on 30 Jan 17
     
    Making Mexico pay for the the wall is literally going to your neighbors house with your cable bill and asking them to pay for it, they're not going to do it. It's going to cost Americans to put up this wall, and if Trump wants it to be so big and great the more it's going to cost.
christa bennett

I wish my mother had aborted me - 6 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

Government politics news abortion pro-life

shared by christa bennett on 27 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • christa bennett on 27 Aug 12
     
    this article is about abortion which is an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. I just thought that it was interesting to read but I am in no way for abortion.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 29 Aug 12
     
    Abortion is never the way to go no matter what circumstance. Whether its an accident, and inconvenience or cause by rape, abortion is never the answer. People who get abortions are selfish, if rape is the issue and you don't want to have the kid because you don't want to be reminded of that instance in your life, then give the kid up for adoption. Whether you have the abortion or not, you will always have that memory. So give that life a chance, just as you had a chance when you were born. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter the reason they were brought into this world.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Aug 12
     
    Here's the way that I see the whole abortion issue: Personally, I am pro-choice. Even though it could be considered ethically wrong to get an abortion, it's the mother's body, and she can do as she pleases with it. However, it IS wrong to use abortion as birth control. I think the issue is that some people think that they don't have to use proper birth control, and can just get an abortion. But abortion should definitely be allowed in situations of incest, because inbreeding is just never good. It causes the child in question to have problems, and while people with physical or mental issues are accepted in society, it's just common sense to prevent it when it CAN actually be prevented, like incest (don't abort the child if it's not incest). I also think that teenage girls deserve the right to get an abortion, because they're typically going to still be going to school, and I imagine that going to school pregnant is hard in every way. Of course, the best option is proper birth control, but it unfortunately isn't available in certain situations.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Aug 12
     
    I agree with Kirstina, abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, birth control should be used. I also think that abortions need to be available in cases of rape, as well. It's easy to say "just give the kid up for adoption" but it's much harder to guarantee that the child will actually be adopted into a good home, or will even be adopted at all. Many children spend their lives in foster homes. Besides, you would still be forcing the mother to carry a fetus for nine months, putting her life on hold for something that isn't even conscious.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    Being morally correct is so much more important than being politically correct. Abortion is in so many ways is morally wrong. To be for something that should very well be considered murder is absolutely absurd. I agree, everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing to their body IS right. That is like being pro drugs. Yes, if people want to do drugs, I guess that's their right, but is it right that they're doing drugs? No. That applies to abortion. And yes, "just give the kid up for adoption" IS the better way to go, because whether or not they go to a good home shouldn't be your biggest concern, it's whether or not they even HAVE a home. So give the poor helpless baby a chance, just like you had a chance, because that baby could grow up and do great things. Whether it was raised in a foster home, orphanage or by an unfit family, if you (the one who's pregnant) feel like your unfit to raise your child, wouldn't you think anything else would be better for it than killing it without ever giving it a chance?
  • Jenny Ord on 30 Aug 12
     
    i think in cases like that abortion should be allowed. i am pro-choice but when a dumb 15 year old gets an abortion just because they chose to have unprotected sex is not right. they should take responsibilities for their actions. but if the situation is like this, when the kid will be abused and poor and neglected i believe abortion should be allowed. it was sad to read this article but also good to read.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    But when you're pregnant, how do you know they will be abused, if the parent would just have the baby and take responsibility for their actions in the beginning then they wouldnt be abused. Wouldnt you make sure of that? for the sake of your child? or are you just going to give up, take the easy way out and kill it?
  • Katelyn Owen on 30 Aug 12
     
    Its really sad to think that someone would have wanted their mothers to abort them. Even if it was what could have been best for them.
  • Mallory Huggins on 31 Aug 12
     
    Alex, did you read this article? This article is about how the parent DID have the baby and "took responsibility for their actions" and then abused the child. So, no just because a parent takes responsibility for their actions in the beginning, that doesn't mean the child won't be abused. If you look at it rationally and scientifically, abortion really isn't murder. Abortions are possible through the second trimester, or 24th week of pregnancy. At this time it is impossible for the fetus to live outside of the womb. It has only just started producing blood cells, the eyes aren't developed until the 26th week, the bones aren't developed until between the 31st and 34th week, the brain is still developing even after the 30th week, and the lungs aren't mature until after the 34th week. So is it really 'murder' to abort something that has less consciousness and is less developed than a mouse?
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    I am pro-choice, and agree with Mallory and Kirstina. Sure, it's not fair for the unborn baby, but is it fair for the parent(s). In the situation of rape, definitely not. Giving birth to someones child that physically harmed you, a mother should not have to do that. Not to mention how expensive it is to have a child. Why should a 15 year old have to pay that sort of money to have a child? The real problem, they don't, and the parents have to suffer for their child, which is unfair to them. If you want to say it's still morally wrong, it's just as bad as stealing thousands of dollars from those who gave birth to you just to let that child live.
Bryan Pregon

New mask rules trust Americans will be honest about vaccine status - 15 views

www.usatoday.com/...5107686001

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 May 21 - No Cached
  • sydneykolln on 17 May 21
     
    I think that all of us know that people are going to lie about their vaccine status. It will be interesting to see how stores and other public places are going to handle this new rule.
  • ...10 more comments...
  • arosas733 on 17 May 21
     
    Honestly, the mandate is lifted (for Iowa at least) so if you do not want to wear a mask, vaccinated or not you shouldn't have to. It is your choice. And you should especially not have to have the vaccine to travel and put something in your body not proven to be safe or cause long-term effects. There are bigger problems to worry about than if Americans will lie and say they're vaccinated to not wear their mask especially if it's not mandated in the area.
  • lhunter952 on 17 May 21
     
    I am interested in how the cases will turn out now that more people are not wearing masks. If it gets too bad I'm sure something else will be put into place.
  • joeypo10 on 17 May 21
     
    I wonder how the government is going to force non vaccinated people to wear a mask. It is real easy to just say you're vaccinated when you really aren't.
  • hannahliwai on 17 May 21
     
    i don't think that people will be honest about their vaccinations only to not wear their mask. not everyone carries their vaccination card with them(although we should, i know i don't)
  • kredding147 on 17 May 21
     
    I think this is going to be interesting to see. So many people were already refusing to wear masks and I think this might just make it worse.
  • samhovey on 17 May 21
     
    I don't think this was the right move, as America is nowhere close to herd immunity
  • noahsandbothe on 17 May 21
     
    I have still seen people on social media that have admitted to not wearing masks and not getting vaccinated citing "My body, my choice". This is idiotic and people think that the government is out to get them and control them by wanting them to wear masks and getting the vaccine. There are also people who don't trust the vaccine for no good reason.
  • saraivargas on 17 May 21
     
    I don't think many people are out there being honest. Many are going to think that if it isn't required why would they wear one? It's a lot of trust on something you don't have a definite answer for.
  • vperez191 on 18 May 21
     
    now people might not be required to wear a mask if they are fully vaccinated so fewer people will stop wearing masks. Even people who are not vaccinated are going to use that excuse that "they are vaccinated"
  • ataylor074 on 18 May 21
     
    People are going to lie about being vaccinated, just like they lie about having a medical exemption. All we can do is hope that people will be honest.
  • rosellyrosas on 18 May 21
     
    A lot of people now getting vaccinated, meaning that when they have their proper doses they don't need to wear a mask, which means that a lot of people will either be honest or lie to not wear a mask. It will be interesting how republic places will make people either wear their masks or not.
  • Bryan Pregon on 21 May 21
     
    Good discussion so far! I'll also point people to the new thread on the new Iowa law banning mask mandates in schools and local governments. Definitely some overlap in these topics.
Michael Keller

What a Joe Biden presidency means for taxes, health care, housing, student debt - and a... - 7 views

www.allsides.com/...-care-housing-student-debt-and

shared by Michael Keller on 09 Nov 20 - No Cached
  • Michael Keller on 09 Nov 20
     
    I've heard many things about Biden being president, most predominantly gas going up and Kamala Harris taking over for Biden which I kinda see happening. I feel like they'll say Biden's mentally unfit or bring up the Hunter Biden stuff and Harris will take over.
  • ...8 more comments...
  • hharker376 on 09 Nov 20
     
    Hopefully, this new president will give America a chance to turn over a new leaf and repair the damages that had been previously done.
  • makosa23 on 09 Nov 20
     
    Hopefully he make us wear mask everyday then corona is gonna over.
  • jcollins438 on 09 Nov 20
     
    I think a lot of people are going to struggle with the price inflation and it's going to be a little rocky.
  • jcooley186 on 09 Nov 20
     
    I'm hoping that we'll be able to see more progress and actions towards covid, climate change, and more from this new president.
  • xxchrysxx on 09 Nov 20
     
    I personally was hoping for Biden to win, but after hearing some things and doing more research it's unclear. No one is perfect, but I can say all we can do is hope for the best. I just hope for my generation he will help us in the long run for our future.
  • bayliegirres on 14 Nov 20
     
    I agree with Michael, that Kamala Harris is going to take over for Biden. I also think that raising taxes for the people who make over $400,000 a year is not fair.
  • scarney230 on 16 Nov 20
     
    i am glad that biden is going to broadened health care coverage and student loan forgiveness i think this will help many poeple
  • laurenhansen168 on 16 Nov 20
     
    I think health care is going to help many people, but the fact that people that make a certain amount of money, have to pay higher taxes, is not fair.
  • livmorrow on 16 Nov 20
     
    I also think that a lot of people are going to struggle with the prices inflating. But I just hope that with Biden being president more people can be tolerant with each other since no one was doing then when Trump was in office.
  • trinitytallman on 16 Nov 20
     
    I think that people who make a certain amount of money shouldn't have to pay more taxes, it's not fair.
Madison Clark

Girl "Raped" at After Game Parties.. Should Boys be Charged? - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Madison Clark on 14 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Madison Clark on 14 Mar 13
     
    The eye witness admitted to sharing a bottle of vodka with the girl. If she allowed herself to get so sloppy drunk, especially at the age of 16, then how are people suppose to feel bad for her? I mean i'm not saying that getting "raped" is ever okay but I'm sure the boys were impaired as well and neither parties really knew what was going on. Another thing I would like to point out is, how does this girl just happen to show up at MULTIPLE parties with these guys?
  • ...13 more comments...
  • Kayla Beck on 14 Mar 13
     
    To me, the boys definitely should have to face the consequences of their actions, for taking advantage of a girl the way they did, but she had every intention to go to that party to drink. How do you not expect to be taken advantage of at a party when you're a drunk teenage girl? Going to the party in the first place was irresponsible and not safe on her part, because anyone will take advantage of a girl too drunk to say no. Her "friend" should have made sure she did not go to the house with those two boys anyway.
  • jalitz336 on 14 Mar 13
     
    The guys who did that should be charged, maybe 90 + but the girls "victim" should also be charged for drinking under age. The person who gave her the vodka should be charged for distributing to minors
  • cbonar311 on 14 Mar 13
     
    Those two guys should have to serve time in prison, rape is a serious crime. They were super cruel!!!
  • Alex Barrett on 15 Mar 13
     
    To me it seems like she is saying she was raped to help her image. She might not of wanted to do what she did when she was sober, but since she was drunk her mindset could have changed completely
  • madacyn on 15 Mar 13
     
    I think all three of them should be punished. They were all drinking way too much and did it to themselves. Although I do think the boys should be in more trouble than the girl because rape is worse than drinking.
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 13
     
    I feel that this case is a good reminder that there are "natural consequences" for our behavior. These are separate from the legal consequences that so many people argue over. I think that anyone should expect bad things to happen when they put themselves in these situations, but that doesn't mean they "deserve it". In my eyes the legal consequences are clear; anytime you have sex with a person who doesn't know what's happening, you are committing rape. Period.
  • jalitz336 on 15 Mar 13
     
    It was her fault that she was drinking, and if it was a "rape" at a party. Someone would have heard or saw i think she just did something she regretted and now shes saying that she got raped.
  • Nina Crochet on 15 Mar 13
     
    I think that it was partially her fault for putting herself in that situation, but if she shared a bottle of vodka and was that so drunk, than how does she actually know if she was raped? Plus she showed up at other parties with these boys when they all knew what would happen at each party when they drank. This is why there is an age limit to drinking, and minors should not drink.
  • Meghan Manifold on 18 Mar 13
  • jalitz336 on 19 Mar 13
     
    Multiple people should be charged for different crimes
  • melissamartinez on 20 Mar 13
     
    They should be punished. But the girl should also receive a punishment for she was drinking underage and she should have been conscious of how much she drank. None of them should really be considered "victims" in my opinion
  • courtney wilson on 20 Mar 13
     
    well my opinion is that the boy shouldnt be the only charged with a crime. Multiple people should be charged for different crimes.
  • amandacombs on 20 Mar 13
     
    Okay, here's my perspective on this. The girl obviously decided to party with them at multiple parties with them multiple times. if she chose to drink that much alcohol and get drunk to where she didn't know what was going on, then that's her own fault. But they boys also should not have taken advantage of the girl. But her choice had bad consequences.
  • Bryan Pregon on 20 Mar 13
     
    Even more people may end up being charged with this crime: http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/03/18/steubenville-rape-investigation-isnt-finished
  • Tori Caddell on 22 Mar 13
     
    If the girl has party with the boys before, and probably then, got stupid drunk, then what would urge the oys to "take advantage" of her this time, as opposed to all the other times? It does not make sense. Plus, she is only sixteen, so it is more her fault that she even allowed herself to go to parties, knowing everything that could, or may happen.
Bryan Pregon

China 'seriously concerned' after Donald Trump questions 'one China' policy - CNNPoliti... - 16 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Dec 16
     
    "China has warned that it's "seriously concerned" after President-elect Donald Trump questioned whether the United States should keep its long-standing position that Taiwan is part of "one China.""
  • ...8 more comments...
  • russellboi on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • nate kliegl on 12 Dec 16
     
    I think Trump should stick with the one China policy because he shouldn't risk losing the already steady relationship with China
  • lauren rambo on 12 Dec 16
     
    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?
  • sschultz777 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Landon Mohr on 12 Dec 16
     
    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?
  • daulton wilcoxen on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • trump16 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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....
  • tbrockman469 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • nick perry on 12 Dec 16
     
    trump16, just because he says he is going to doesn't mean he will actions speak louder than words. And Trump should be more cautious and have in mind the relationship China and the US have with each other.
  • bayleefox1 on 12 Dec 16
     
    i agree w nate i think trump should just stay with the one china policy so he doesnt risk losing the relationship w china
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

www.motherjones.com/...ideo-romney-private-fundraiser

Government President Candidate News 2012

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 18 Sep 12
     
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 18 Sep 12
     
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  • Rainie mccubbin on 18 Sep 12
     
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  • Rainie mccubbin on 19 Sep 12
     
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 19 Sep 12
     
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  • Cameron Pick on 19 Sep 12
     
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  • Alex Snipes on 19 Sep 12
     
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  • Mallory Huggins on 21 Sep 12
     
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
Bryan Pregon

Primary election 2016: What to watch on March 15 - CNNPolitics.com - 39 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    "Voters go to the polls in Florida, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina and Ohio on Tuesday. Here's what to watch in those contests:"
  • ...30 more comments...
  • ltorneten065 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I bet Sanders wins a few Midwest States. Momentum is definitely on his side after he took Michigan over Hillary. Also I feel that both Rubio and Kasich will both be knocked out of the race. I feel that Donald Trump will keep winning. I bet Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton will be the ones campaigning for president in the end.
  • Bryan Pregon on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that if Rubio does not win Florida today, he will drop out and support Ted Cruz. Clinton will win Florida, but Sanders will take the other states.
  • egessert on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Sanders will close the gap in between him and Clinton. I also think like Donald Trump will win most of the votes in the other states.
  • nickwarneke on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that ted Cruz will win Florida, and will win slightly over trump in the other states, Clinton will lose Florida and will lose the other states to sanders.
  • kadenroen on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that sander will have the advantage in the Midwest, and Hillary and Trump will have advantages in other states. Also I think Trump and Clinton will be the last ones for election.
  • tyjeff22 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict the Trump will win and face off against Hillary
  • selena99 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Donald Trump will beat Rubio and ted Cruz, if Rubio does not win the votes over in Florida. If sanders cannot make a come back and get the super delegates to vote for him then Hillary will win the race and go against Trump.
  • kfloerchinger on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think as of right now Trump will win for the Republicans even though Cruz is close behind, more people are still predicted to vote for Trump today. Even if Kasich thinks he can win some delegates this week he still won't gain enough to compete and will end up dropping out. When it comes to Hillary vs Sanders I think it will be a close race, I predict HIllary will win Florida because she's had a pattern of winning the southern states, but Sanders has a better chance of winning the other states left.
  • calebsnead on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Hillary and Sanders will split, but Hillary will stay ahead because of her lead. I also think that Trump will add onto his lead and be campaigning in the end.
  • ivanhessche on 15 Mar 16
     
    i predict that if rubio does not win in Florida trump would have a easier win when the time comes. If sander can get a jump on Clinton in the other state will give him more ammunition when the voting comes.
  • gage barton on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that if trump wins Florida he will have a smooth road ahead and leave the other candidates behind. I think if sanders doesn't get enough votes to sway the super delegates Clinton will go on and face trump.
  • bwest01 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that, nearing the middle of the race, it has begun to be more focused on stopping the "big-wig's" Trump and Hillary. Bernie Sanders' momentum in the race is picking up and if he wins Florida and Ohio it very well could end up in his favor. Also at this time I agree with Mr. Pregon's above comment, if Rubio does not win his home state he may drop out and push his fellow runner, Cruz, forward. The same goes for Kasich in Ohio.
  • zander0823 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Rubio will win Florida and it will put him closer in the race but he will still not be able to make a big enough jump to get in the head to head race.
  • elijah57 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think Rubio will win Florida, Kasich will lose in Ohio and support Cruz. Clinton will win Florida but Sanders will win everywhere else.
  • kcaskey940 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict Rubio will win Florida putting him closer to Cruz but not enough to give him the win.
  • christianthecub on 15 Mar 16
     
    Trump will likely sweep the board, or come very close to it. His numbers will more than likely convince other republican candidates to drop out and support either himself or Cruz. For the rest of the country its rather concerning deeming Trump has been instigating and promoting American Citizens inner Nazi as of late. On the democratic side of things, Hillary will likely win Florida, but given the financial situation of most of the other states, I am strongly convinced Bernie will win most of them.
  • kyleighsev on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that when they get farther west that Bernie will be able to catch up to Hillary and there;s a good change because the article even said that she was starting to get nervous about the debate.
  • morgandooty on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win the majority on the Republican side. I think he will be way ahead of Cruz by the end of the day. Rubio might stay a little longer, even though he will not win Florida. Kasich will probably drop out today, and he will support Trump. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will be pretty close. I think Clinton will win slightly more delegates than Sanders.
  • abbygroepper on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think the gap will close between Bernie and Hilary. Donald Trump will probably win the republican side
  • mjones776 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Bernie Sanders may just win Florida and he could just pass up Hillary. I think if Rubio ends up not being able to even win his own state, then he may just drop out and support.
  • cmorgal on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Trump will win his side and face off against Sanders.
  • bclayton731 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict sanders will win Florida and upset Clinton like he did in Michigan. He should also be able to win all the other states except for North Carolina which favors Clinton more. If Rubio and Kasich do not win there rich delegate home states they will more then likely drop out of the race. I also believe Ted Cruz can get ahead of Donald Trump today in the race for president.
  • tannerrocha426 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I believe that trump will win the republican nominee. Cruz has no chance in beating him. Either Rubio. FOr the democratic side Bernie has no chance. He will not beat a Clinton. She has already had her marks in politics weather bad or good. For president its said to say but Hillary will become the next president Of The United States.
  • alyssaserrano on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win for the republicans and end up being one of the candidates in the end, and if Sanders doesn't win the Midwest and get some of the super delegates Clinton will be up against Trump.
  • wamichael on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that Sander's momentum will be able to make him tie with or be ahead of Clinton just barely. And judging by the super delegates being in the hands of Clinton at this moment, when Sanders gets his momentum and is able to at least tie with Clinton by the time the convention comes it will take Sanders his all to get the super delegates to favor him more than Clinton.
  • mariosaldana on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that the last two candidates from both the democrats side and republicans side will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
  • kyleboldt on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that Trump will win on the republican side beating Cruz closely. I think Clinton will win on the other side barely beating Sander while she takes the most votes.
  • msap832 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I predict that trump stays in the lead for the republican side. Kasich drops out. And for the Democratic side Hillary keeps the lead but not by much as Sanders slowly is closing the gap between him and Hillary.
  • epond857 on 15 Mar 16
     
    I think that cruz isnt going to get his home town and Kasich will get his home town and when cruz doesnt get his home town he will drop out and support donald trump. And the last 2 in the finals will be hillary clinton and donald trump
  • epond857 on 16 Mar 16
     
    I was somwhat right he cruz didnt get his home town and he droped out but I dont know if hes going to support trump or not?
  • ltorneten065 on 17 Mar 16
     
    I feel that Donald Trump and Hillary will be the winners of their respective parties. I feel that Cruz will drop out of the race and support Trump for the rest of the campaign.
  • kgod152 on 21 Mar 16
     
    Sanders will probably win a few in the midwest but I think Hillary will stay in front, trump as well. Cruz might drop out.
Bryan Pregon

South Carolina adds firing squad to execution methods after running out of lethal-injec... - 20 views

www.abc.net.au/...100125786

shared by Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 09 May 21
     
    "Politicians in South Carolina have voted to add a firing squad to the state's execution methods amid a lack of lethal-injection drugs"
  • ...16 more comments...
  • sydneykolln on 10 May 21
     
    South Carolina has the electric chair and now a firing squad as their execution methods. It's absurd that the firing squad passed and that South Carolina is now the fourth state to allow this. Personally, I don't believe that there should be any execution methods and this just seems completely crazy to me that a firing squad is now one.
  • arosas733 on 10 May 21
     
    I find it kind of funny they would use a firing squad. It is a waste of money and a lot more extra work and time spent on worthless people. I believe executions for those kinds of people should be quick, easy, and cheap. Firing squads just seem ridiculous especially since it's not like they are being attacked and need to use multiple people for one person.
  • nick_rice on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why they would choose a firing squad of all things. I feel like there are more humane ways to execute someone but I suppose some people may want to go out with a bang.
  • allisonwalker on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why this is even a thing. No one should be sentenced to death and if they were sentenced to death, it should be a humane way, not a firing squad or electric chair.
  • kredding147 on 10 May 21
     
    This is just stupid. This would be such a painful and awful way to go, even if you did something bad enough to get sentenced to death. Imagine what these people's families would be thinking, watching their son or daughter getting shot to death.
  • joeypo10 on 10 May 21
     
    I don't understand why South Carolina thinks this should be aloud. Granted the death would happen anyway but having people line up and shoot people just seems inhumane and unnecessary.
  • peytongrenoble on 10 May 21
     
    I personally don't understand how they came to the decision that this was smart or found a way to justify it. I don't think that it is something that is going to be used in other states...hopefully. I think that this should be intervened by the national government considering how inhumane the idea is.
  • samhovey on 10 May 21
     
    I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.
  • eballenger on 10 May 21
     
    I think this is a pretty cruel punishment even for large criminals and seems like its more for the firing squad than it is about justice.
  • milo_nordman on 11 May 21
     
    Having a firing squad as an execution method is ridiculous. It's a cruel and inhumane punishment that shouldn't be used, and the fact that four states have it listed as an execution method is disturbing.
  • ericschmidtberge on 11 May 21
     
    I think that there should be a death penalty in cases where the criminal is too dangerous to be kept in captivity but a firing squad is an insane method. Not only is it a waste of money, time, and effort but do they really need a full firing squad for one person? That just makes no sense and seems nothing but cruel and disturbing.
  • mcaamal on 13 May 21
     
    I disagree with this they should not be adding new way of execution. This a cruel way to punish people and it should not be allowed. There are other way to punish people other than getting violent.
  • abbidominguez on 14 May 21
     
    I think a firing squad is very extreme. I think the death penalty in general is very extreme. I can't believe South Carolina is the 4th state to allow this as well. There are definitely other ways to go about this than a firing squad or a death penalty at all.
  • masonmascarenas on 17 May 21
     
    I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.
  • jdogan on 17 May 21
     
    I can't see a death sentence not being a cruel punishment let alone the electric chair as the method, but South Carolina seeking to go further by adding the firing squad is even worse the fact that anyone would be convinced this is acceptable is astounding to me and shows the disconnect people have from the people around them
  • redrose99875 on 17 May 21
     
    I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again
  • tsilva588 on 17 May 21
     
    Honestly, lethal injection isn't any better they still suffer even with that method so I don't really see a problem with this because they will be killed either way.
  • thomaschau on 21 May 21
     
    I think a firing squad is a more humane death than lethal injection. Trained men with rifles and a well-placed shot to the head are the swiftest way to go.
jessicasolorio

Can people bring guns to voting sites? You might be surprised - Los Angeles Times - 27 views

www.latimes.com/...guns-in-polling-places

shared by jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • jessicasolorio on 26 Oct 20
     
    What's your guys' opinion on this?
  • ...28 more comments...
  • gozzello162 on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters
  • hharker376 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.
  • josephinelamb on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.
  • emilysmith200 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.
  • jcollins438 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed
  • olijohnson on 26 Oct 20
     
    I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site
  • makosa23 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be able to allowed
  • bayliegirres on 26 Oct 20
     
    I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.
  • mmailey052 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.
  • trinitytallman on 26 Oct 20
     
    People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.
  • saralong057 on 26 Oct 20
     
    This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.
  • scarney230 on 26 Oct 20
     
    i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos
  • Bryan Pregon on 26 Oct 20
     
    Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa
  • cmacias539 on 26 Oct 20
     
    No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.
  • laurenhansen168 on 30 Oct 20
     
    I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.
  • jcooley186 on 02 Nov 20
     
    I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.
  • carmellahargens on 13 Jan 21
     
    i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.
  • ataylor074 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.
  • nadialove on 27 Jan 21
     
    I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.
  • gavync_alhs on 27 Jan 21
     
    If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.
  • matts999 on 27 Jan 21
     
    It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Feb 21
     
    i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote
  • eballenger on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.
  • pcloyd_flanagan on 01 Feb 21
     
    I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    It's a bad idea. Why would someone need to bring a gun to a voting site? Just vote and then leave. leave your gun at home for this.
  • jcontreras201 on 25 May 21
     
    I think it's a bad idea to let people bring guns to voting sites because theirs literally no reason to, there going to vote, and if anything letting people take guns will just make it worse.
qanderson136

The liberal Dr. Seuss probably would have thought 'cancel culture' was bunk - Chicago T... - 25 views

www.chicagotribune.com/...sebcxhnjhhgrhajwmtq-story.html

shared by qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21 - No Cached
qanderson136 liked it
  • qanderson136 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I think that the Dr. Seuss banning in schools was uncalled for because the pictures in his books from the 1950s were just the way it was back then and I do not believe he went out to be racist. Does anyone else have any opinions?
  • ...16 more comments...
  • gbrochu915 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that they should be banning Dr. Seuss in schools and I do not think that he came out to be racist with his books. when he started wringing that was how people did and things were back then and today's society is so sensitive to everything. so many kids grew reading his books that I just think it is wrong.
  • lhunter952 on 08 Mar 21
     
    Dr. Suess being canceled is just going too far. He wrote children's books in the 1950s, back then things like pictures in a children's book were not viewed as something that could be racist and I believe that that is not what he intended at all. These books were made for the entertainment of children.
  • laceyperry067 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I don't feel Dr. Seuss books were published to spread hate on certain races. I could be wrong but if it was, they would be canceled far before now. I think these books should not be banned due to the fact, if they were racist, we could learn from the past. We all know the 1950s had minstrel shows which promoted things such as black face. We do not ban those videos or other past history evidence because we learn from those things. It's all history and we can not change what happened. All we can do is learn to be better.
  • nadialove on 09 Mar 21
     
    I agree with laceyperry067 I don't believe that there was ill intent behind the books it was just what was "acceptable" at the time. I don't think it would be right the erase the work of a good writer, but as a person of color we should neither condone nor promote those kinds of images in children's books. Books like this, with dated ideas, should be handled differently in order to teach right from wrong. We have to learn from the ugly truth in order to grow and move past it.
  • redrose99875 on 09 Mar 21
     
    I think it's utterly ridiculous that they're banning his books! Maybe he was racist, maybe he wasn't. But he wouldn't put that kind of thing in a children's book!
  • sydneykolln on 13 Mar 21
     
    I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books and enjoyed reading them. It's insane to think that they are now being canceled. Granted, I feel like all we can do is move past this and learn from it. However, I do not think that erasing his literature is a good idea.
  • zeaksorensen on 15 Mar 21
     
    it feels strange that they are not going to be sold
  • brandonwch on 15 Mar 21
     
    A few things. First off, as a response to Zeak as far as my knowledge is concerned, the books are still going to be sold. (Unless a business decides not to sell them.) What's happened is that they aren't going to be printed anymore, new copies aren't going to be made. Second, as a general thing does everyone actually know the books that aren't being printed? None of them are particularly famous, except for maybe "And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street." As well, it's not some outside force making the Seuss estate stop publishing these books, they willingly decided to do so. No-one is being "Cancelled," here. As well, it's things like this (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/05/books/03DRSEUSS5/merlin_184489674_86a1b9c7-d76d-45d0-b52c-0976d003a730-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg) (https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/If-I-Ran-the-Zoo.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=400) that are the reasons the books are being pulled from shelves, which have fairly racist and stereotyped depictions of Chinese people.
  • mcaamal on 15 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that if dr seuss was that liberal he wouldn't have intentionally tried to portray them badly, i feel like a lot of people are taking a lot of things to far they just try to nick pick everything out to find something wrong with someone and come after to just to great drama.
  • nick_rice on 22 Mar 21
     
    I do not think that his books should be banned because his books were more of its time. The books were for children to read and enjoy not for them to read and be racist.
  • allisonwalker on 22 Mar 21
     
    I don't think that we should cancel Dr.Suess. His books were fine before and then suddenly everyone hates them? If you are offended by his books for some reason, then just don't read them, it's as simple as that. You shouldn't go as far as banning them.
  • joeypo10 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think its weird to stop producing a kids picture book because kids really don't take books that deeply. Plus at such a young age the kids don't understand much of today's society so it makes no sense to stop producing books that were made in the 50's.
  • hannahliwai on 29 Mar 21
     
    i think cancel culture is absurd. yes, there are offensive things everywhere, but cancelling them won't rid the world of it. i think it's good that people are recognizing certain things as... insulting, but banning childrens' books?
  • samhovey on 29 Mar 21
     
    Children are very impressionable at a young age, and supplying them with books with such messages may put racial stereotypes into their heads.
  • eballenger on 29 Mar 21
     
    I read these books as a kid and it didn't influence me to believe stereotypes, I just read them for fun like a little kid would and it had no effect on my future.
  • tkoesters274 on 25 May 21
     
    I think that children shouldn't be reading things that may affect their opinions on people, which I understand how these books potentially could. However, I was not negatively affected by any of these books and can also see how people may just see them as children's books. I see other people commenting about how things were different in the 1950s and that is why it should be allowed, but things are different now. We don't need racist children's books from the past, and if that's Dr. Suess then I feel like he was banned for a good reason.
  • hschimmer540 on 25 May 21
     
    When I was a kid I used to love Dr. Seuss's books and as a kid, you don't think about the so-called "racist" part of the books kids just see bright colors and fun characters. I think canceling Dr. Seuss's books was uncalled for and kind of ridiculous.
  • bigslide on 25 May 21
     
    I actually don't really care. The books that they removed were like 5.
kroark782

D.C. Moves Towards $11.50 Minimum Wage - 0 views

money.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by kroark782 on 04 Dec 13 - No Cached
maceep and jkeller068 liked it
  • kroark782 on 04 Dec 13
     
    The minimum wage shouldn't be raised because giving everyone more money is the same as not giving anyone anything.
  • ...6 more comments...
  • Ellie Croson on 04 Dec 13
     
    I think it should be raised, People are working to hard for too little money.
  • chrislegg263 on 04 Dec 13
     
    i like that the minimum wage is being brought up
  • Daniel Bonner on 04 Dec 13
     
    I don't know if moving Minimum Wage up is a good idea because than the prices of everything will go up. But if they keep moving the Wage up and things stay the same price than thats a good idea.
  • jsteenbock23 on 04 Dec 13
     
    If we increase the minimum wage then the cost of living will go up, taxes, and businesses will be able to increase their prices.
  • deahnna on 05 Dec 13
     
    There's pros and cons to moving minimum wage up. The cost of living, taxes, and products will go up, because they have to pay people more to make the goods or provide the services. It's a tricky situation, but it really wont change much.
  • Pedro Valdez on 05 Dec 13
     
    Probably not a good idea because then businesses would be able to increase the price on almost everything. But if everything stays the way it is and nothing but the minimum wage goes up it would be fine.
  • jkeller068 on 05 Dec 13
     
    It's not worth It..because everything else will go up to match the new wages..so it would be as if nothing happened.
  • nlarsen15 on 06 Dec 13
     
    Isn't this borderline inflation? More money given making the value go down and (as the dude above me) everyone else will raise the wages of everything else?
Bryan Pregon

Iranian Women's Soccer Captain Will Miss Asian Cup After Husband Takes Passport | Bleac... - 12 views

bleacherreport.com/...p-after-husband-takes-passport

shared by Bryan Pregon on 17 Sep 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 17 Sep 15
     
    "Iranian women's soccer captain Niloufar Ardalan will not be present at the Asian Cup, as her husband has decided to invoke his legal, husbandly right to withhold her passport."
  • ...4 more comments...
  • Julia Gibler on 17 Sep 15
     
    It's sad that there are still countries that give men power over their wives. Legally, a woman should be able to go where she wants without her husband's approval. There are rights for husbands but none for the wives which is unfair.
  • bharold850 on 17 Sep 15
     
    This woman is obviously very successful to be the captain of the travelling team that will be participating in the Asian Cup and for her husband to withhold her passport is hindering her success. It's very shocking and saddening to see this kind of misogyny still present within this world today.
  • amcintosh485 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think that this is completely wrong. I believe that a woman should have free rights to do things she wants to do and go where she wants to go. This is a big thing for her and for her husband to withhold her passport is in no way okay.
  • denniseram on 29 Sep 15
     
    That woman should have the right to join her team. She seems very successful. I don't think men should have control over the women and have no rights of their own.
  • sophiataylor001 on 29 Sep 15
     
    I think it's terrible that he would do that. If it's something she enjoys she should be able to go out and do it. Especially something this important.
  • ryanlegg on 07 Oct 15
     
    this is totally legal but not ethical, I feel bad for the soccer captain but I'm not entirely on either one side in this particular predicament. I feel if she wants to go badly then she should talk to the husband about it because nobody else can do anything for her right now.
Bryan Pregon

Nebraska outlaws the death penalty - CNNPolitics.com - 17 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 28 May 15
     
    "Six states have abolished capital punishment since 2007 -- Nebraska is now the seventh."
  • ...17 more comments...
  • denniseram on 08 Sep 15
     
    I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).
  • seanveazie on 08 Sep 15
     
    Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.
  • tiaross on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.
  • amcintosh485 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.
  • bharold850 on 08 Sep 15
     
    As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?
  • allisonwolff on 08 Sep 15
     
    I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.
  • kaylawalden on 08 Sep 15
     
    The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.
  • gillyhyde on 08 Sep 15
     
    I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.
  • sophiataylor001 on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.
  • katiepetersen005 on 08 Sep 15
     
    Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.
  • kdamgaard on 08 Sep 15
     
    I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.
  • ryanlegg on 09 Sep 15
     
    Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious
  • Julia Gibler on 09 Sep 15
     
    I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.
  • austindueling1 on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty
  • jacobdizona on 11 Sep 15
     
    We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.
  • casandrabristow on 11 Sep 15
     
    I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.
  • ryanlegg on 14 Sep 15
     
    but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.
  • chris563 on 17 Sep 15
     
    I think its okay if the person that going into it haves killed like 40 people and they in joy doing it but if you just kill some one on accident then its not right just to give them the death penalty, instead they should just be locked up.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Bumped for discussion on Political Ideology.
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

www.cnn.com/...kg-high-school-dress-code.kcci

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15
     
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  • kylecrowl on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  • alexander4434 on 16 Mar 15
     
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  • kdankiw188 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  • shandahansen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  • dawsonmantich on 16 Mar 15
     
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  • montanagarbez999 on 16 Mar 15
     
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  • claireboes on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  • peytonjs on 16 Mar 15
     
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  • desiree13 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  • jay_hubbard on 16 Mar 15
     
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  • noahseyboth on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  • jborwick on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  • Christopher Daniels on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  • bchurch743 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  • diegomartinez97 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  • danielaespinoza on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  • rylanrichards on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  • abbyotten on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  • jordan_love on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  • meganferleman on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  • leomendez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  • Kevin Branigan on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  • rduncan264 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  • lcapel742 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  • zachmurray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  • britthutch12 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  • swilder988 on 16 Mar 15
     
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  • mmuffley163 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  • zack gray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  • dillonpalen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  • cschnackel824 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  • angel fernandez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  • sarahh_821 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  • ccannon666 on 16 Mar 15
     
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  • donaldc802 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 15
     
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  • jroberson300 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  • anthony309 on 03 Sep 15
     
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  • baddison753 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  • guillermosolorio on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  • jjacobs079 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  • gabbymorley on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  • seanveazie on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  • austindueling1 on 03 Sep 15
     
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  • rallman915 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  • ernieclements on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  • johnschmidthuber on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  • Renee Borgaila on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  • tiaross on 03 Sep 15
     
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  • Sunshine Wink on 03 Sep 15
     
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  • sophiataylor001 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  • katiepetersen005 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  • christopher721 on 03 Sep 15
     
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  • ryanlegg on 08 Sep 15
     
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
madi christensen

California and President Trump are going to war with each other - 16 views

www.washingtonpost.com/...e-going-to-war-with-each-other

shared by madi christensen on 07 Feb 17 - No Cached
  • madi christensen on 07 Feb 17
     
    President Trump had harsh words for one of his most fervent opponents during the pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News's Bill O'Reilly that aired Sunday. Not President Vladimir Putin, mind you, whose alleged unpleasant habit of murdering journalists met with a shrug from the president. No, Trump lashed out at the nation's largest state, California.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • kelsi836 on 07 Feb 17
     
    First he says that he is opposed to sanctuary cities, saying it breeds crime and goes on to say that "we have to well defend, we give tremendous amounts of money to California". But then when asked if that was his "weapon of choice" trump says, " I don't want to defend the state...If they're going to have sanctuary cities, we may have to do that." First he says this and then he says that, what IS his opinion here? Plus when he says that sanctuary cities breeds crime, but the FBI gives proof to show that it doesn't. Why can't he check his facts before he says something?
  • kim bagshaw on 07 Feb 17
     
    So Trump wants to pull money from California's school, which is ridiculous it will make the US dumber than it already is, we have lost our rank in education. This war doesn't even make logical sense, taking money will never solve the problem. It will cause more.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 07 Feb 17
     
    I think Trump sounds ignorant when he says that they breed more crime. Every city has crime and theres always going to be people that commit crimes no matter what
  • mwheeler21 on 07 Feb 17
     
    Trump is stubborn, because of everything he wants to change on his terms states will start to rebel. He needs to learn to negotiate with others wants or the whole country will rebel and then it will be out of control.
  • anonymous on 07 Feb 17
     
    There shouldn't be a war at all, i don't really see the point of why he is going to take California's money. Maybe he should cut down some of our military money. Take money from something that is a lot more wide ranged than California.
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 424 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page