Group items tagged

it says clearly that andrew johnson made it so no state for any reason could secede from the union,their will be another election in 4 years o if everybody would just relax and chill everything will be fine

I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government

There are now three other states; Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana, that have reached the required 25,000 signatures on We the People to prompt a response from the White House. I am just waiting to see how the White House will respond to any of the four petitions.

they must think that they can do it better then the normal government. so if they think they can and if the fail they fail if not then good for them.

i think the white house will respond with a no

i think there only trying to do this because there mad that Obama won , and that he will lead the state in to bigger dept.

If the proclamation says the states can't separate they would need to rewrite it and make a new set of laws, also what would happen if they fail at a new government? would they just want the US of america to take them back?

I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.

it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this

I don't think this is going to happen but it is still pretty scary that people are that mad at the government. I think that people always blame the government when they are not happy. If we didn't have the government we would be in more trouble than we are in now. Yes our economy is getting hard and we need more jobs. But some people are lazy and should not make the government pay for everything.

I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.

Texas is probably just upset with the turn out of the election therefore just trying to create their own government to get what they think deserve.

I'm not sure if the point of the article is, "Why Texas wants to Secede." I'm moreover focused as to, if it will happen, and if it is a right of the state to leave the Union. Personally, I would say it is the right of a state to decide if they want to secede. Let us look at the tenth amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The state has over 80k people who signed a petition asking for a secession. If this is the majority, our 10Th amendment would likely give the state the right to secede, as long as 50.1% of the population wished to secede. (Doubt that they actually have a majority that wishes to secede.) In English: The 10Th amendment grants the states the right to secede if the majority of its population sees fit. This is caused by the lack of detail in the constitution. The lacking detail being whether or not the states have the right to secede. (Founding father: Let's put state secession here next to gay marriage and abortion!) Anyways, as long as the majority of Texans wish to secede, I doubt there is any way that the United States could actually tell them they could not, at least not without some sort of conflict.

I have to be . . . not serious here. Just a word of advice to the states who want to secede, based on what happened in the Civil War: If you secede, you won't succeed.

Payton I think the Supreme Court has already decided in Texas v White that States can't unilaterally secede from the government. They have the right to secede through revolution or by asking the other States and getting their permission. At least that's how I read the ruling. Unless there is a newer ruling on secession then Texas v. White. "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States. Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."

"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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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).

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Of course you would put this up Payton....

I think the death penalty is pointless. In my opinion all it does is give horrible criminals an easy way out. If I did something horrible enough to get the death penalty, I'd rather die than serve life in prison.

Yup we are for sure with out a doubt falling back into a dark age.

i think we should have the death penalty

Capital punishment is scarier than going to jail. I think crime rates would go down if this came back.

I think that the death penalty is wrong because they are trying to stop a murderer by murdering him themselves so really it's not much better then what the killer was doing himself.

What would happen if the person was innocent after all?

Yea its pointless cuz then there not going sever there crime and its a easy way out

It will be interesting to hear Sorenson's argument as to why to changes things. Prisons are getting crowded but this is still Iowa. We still have a small population

I think the death penalty is not a bad idea nor I think it is a good idea. They will suffer in jail or suffer in hell. My opinion is put them in jail. If it is not their time to die yet then it is not. If they did something as bad as kill someone then they do deserve to go to jail and suffer for life.

I would agree with harvey. The crime rates would go down and death penalties are effective in other regions.

Its not weather which one is worse, its that killing a person for killing another person is not only hypocritical but inhumane to today's society.

I disagree with bringing the death penalty back to Iowa. We've taken it away twice, once in 1872 and the second time in 1965, so I feel that shows that we, as a state, don't want it. Also the death penalty isn't really a deterrent for crime. There is a really interesting website that shows so facts about murder rates and comparing states that do and don't have the death penalty. They have a ton of information and I would recommend that you go through the site a little if you're interested in this topic. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

I agree with Aaron, but i also think that justice should be served

Aaron giving someone the death penalty is acceptable. Having life in prison is worse anyway and it just puts more people in danger if that person is still alive.

better for the death penalty then life in prison.

Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.

Mr. Garner, it would cost more money to give somebody the death penalty then to have them spend life in prison. We live in a different type of world then when people had there heads chopped off and dragons happened to be there to save "johns" life. To me that's not what God intended us to do with people that made a mistake and yes a big one but everybody has a reason to something or there could be something seriously wrong with there head to commit a murder but its not always there fault.

For 2011, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.7, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.1 For 2010, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.6, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.9 For 2009, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 4.9, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 2.8 For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord

It seems like if the act of violence is bad enough to get the death penalty most of the people kill themselves before the law can.

Would you rather spend the rest of your life in prison or be dead? Think about that!

Mr. Valdivia how would it cost more to give the death penalty then to keep them in prison for life? That's right, IT WOULDN'T. And I'm not saying give the death penalty for 1 murder. Based on depravity and body counts they should be sentenced to death.

unless you commited that bad of a crime i wouldn't worry about it coming back if your not gonna kill people

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/CostsRptFinal.pdf Dylan pages 20 and 21 of the PDF I linked above, explain why the death penalty costs more to administer than life in prison with out parole. More specifically on page 20 under the heading Time on Death Row it says, "In California, a legislative commission concluded that it costs the state an extra $90,000 for each death row inmate per year compared to the costs of the same inmate housed in general population. With over 670 inmates on death row, that amounts to an additional yearly cost of $60 million solely attributable to the death penalty."

Lets keep it simple say the death penalty would be cheaper than housing an inmate for life. Boom, Roasted.

Well then we can change the process to a quick and easy death without all that court BS. And plus I'm a prison warden so you guys both don't know what you are talking about. Aaron. And Jeremy.

FALSE. There is NO WAY you're a prison warden. The minimum age for a Warden is 21, plus you have to have lots of training. So someone of your prestige and experience, (not to mention your practically a 5 year old) would never be able to be a warden. Kthnxbye

I am prison

Dylan and Joe, The reason that the death penalty is more expensive (and always will be) is the courts have to make sure that the criminal that is convicted is 100 percent guilty. There can't be any room for doubt. This means that the state has to supply better (More expensive) lawyers for the suspected party, and the trial has to be more in depth, therefor much longer. We can't make this time shorter than it is, because as a country, we are will do everything we can to keep an Innocent man from dying. And to just keep the perpetrators in jail is much cheaper, as there is already a well set system in place, and one more person will not increase the cost of that system to go up in large amounts as much as the singled out attention a person on death row will.

@ Dylan and Joe, if you both still think that the death penalty is cheaper, you are wrong, look at the 20th page Jeremy posted. @ Jared, ethically speaking, shouldn't any person who is accused of murder have an outrageously expensive lawyer anyways? If someone is going to be imprisoned for life, or going to be executed for a crime, should the one being executed receive a better lawyer?

I think they should, but the person being put to jail for life has the chance to have new evidence pop up, and potentially let them eventually get out, they have the chance to get out on parole, they have the potential for choices. The man that is getting the death penalty have to be 100 percent sure. They don't have room to make mistakes. Ethically, I believe that people getting put away for life should have the same standards of 100 percent, but as I said, they have choices later on down the road. The dead don't.

@ Payton. It is cheaper. I know for a fact. I AM A PRISON WARDEN.

I think one would suffer more life in prison rather than getting the death penalty.

@Peyton Are you trying to tell me its more expensive to keep someone alive in prison? this means that dude lives off our tax money. You will literally pay for his food, housing, and heck, that dude can even go lift for 3 hours a day and run his block! THink about that. State Champ.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I predict the Trump will win and face off against Hillary

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think Rubio will win Florida, Kasich will lose in Ohio and support Cruz. Clinton will win Florida but Sanders will win everywhere else.

I predict Rubio will win Florida putting him closer to Cruz but not enough to give him the win.

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.

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.

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.

I think the gap will close between Bernie and Hilary. Donald Trump will probably win the republican side

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.

I predict that Trump will win his side and face off against Sanders.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think that the last two candidates from both the democrats side and republicans side will be Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

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.

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.

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

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?

Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments

I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.

I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them

I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.

We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)

Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.

The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.

I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.

i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk

I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.

I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".

They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in

I think this is wrong, I don't think they have a right to sue. They were told the rules before they had their little event, which I don't think they should have gotten in the first place. They just didn't like that the rules were enforced, and now they are mad. They shouldn't get the luxuries that we do because they are serving time for their crimes.

I don't think they have the right to sue the state. first of all, they were well aware of the rules before this event took place. It's also a health and safety issue with food being taken back to the living quarters. They are just mad they can't enjoy more of the luxury food they were given. Even though they are paying for the choices they made. So, they shouldn't have the right to sue.

I think they can cry about it. They didn't deserve anything in the first place. :D

I don't think they have the right to sue the state, I might have read this wrong but I didn't see anything about the state doing something that would offend them.

I don't think they can win this because it's not infringing any rights.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state they shouldn't be. It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

Definitely an interesting headline. The claimants (being unjudgemental) feel that they had a religious act violated by the Government. It's a complicated manner because in a way the government did technically interfere with their religious freedoms because the Iowa Department of Human Services put the rule in place that inmates can´t take food into rooms for health reasons centrally not intending to block their freedom but instead concerned about safety and health. I think that even though in a way the claimants do have a point that their creepy and gross religious feast was blocked by the government I also think the rules that were put in place to protect everyone in the prison. Old food can cause sickness, rancid smells, and pests so it Could interfere with other inmates that had nothing to do with the group and therefore I think that the Iowa Department of Human Services is in the right and should win the case.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state, they shouldn't be able to do that!! It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

i think if they got their way with this then it causes problems with other prisoners trying the same thing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This student's name is Zach Wahls and this was a very powerful speech. Here is another link for the story with some more details http://goo.gl/LfiKK . I also know that he did a reddit AMA recently but I can't find a link right now.

"marriage- ... 3) an intimate or close union" i think that if you asked a random person on the street what they thought marriage was this would be close to what they said, so why WOULD we be against it?

If they are together the same as a man and a women are, why shouldn't they get the same benefits? I mean their relationships generally last longer then "legitimate" marriages so why shouldn't they be treated the same? By not allowing them to get married, are you doing anything? Besides denying them the benefits of that little piece of paper...such as lower insurance rates, higher health benefits, what happens if their partner dies? Then simply because they weren't ALLOWED to be married, the living partner does not get their belongings unless it is in the written will, they wont get any of the insurance money because that only goes to family, so if they are just "dating" they don't get any money to help them through the hard times...I think they should allow same sex marriage simply because if they are going to be together whether or not you allow them to get married, they should get the same benefits as everyone else.

I don't mean to start a fight or anything like that, I just don't think it's right in the biblical sense. I am very close minded about this topic, and can't seem to change and I don't plan on it. I can see where people come from, but I bet some of those people don't believe in God, or the bible. It even states it in the bible that is wrong.

I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments. Discussion groups like these can easily turn into arguments with little information on either side. Thanks for being respectful in your comments! To continue the discussion, Americans are almost equally divided on gay marriage. Here is the most recent poll data to see how we have changed our opinion since 1996... http://goo.gl/BFKIo

I don't think that religion can play a part in what marriage is in today's world. Marriage now in the eyes of our government is a way for 2 people to share benefits that the government gives them.

casue it sthe same sex it shold not be

this is a hard question to answer. I believe very strongly that gays have the right to be together and form a union, so i think that marriage is all well and good, but there is another issue. No matter what the dictionary says what the definition of marriage is, it doesn't take superiority over the bibles definition, which clearly states marriage is only to be formed between a man and a woman. Some say that the bible was not very clear on that, and that it is up for debate, but if one looks at leviticus 18:22 it states "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." I don't think it is abominations, but the concept of christianity, and judaism does, which is where it gets tricky. Does the government have the right to force the church to do things against their belief such as allowing gays and lesbians to marry? quite frankly i don't think so. Its not like the pope can just say, hey gays are ok now. It would be blasphemous. the only way gays would be allowed is if God himself came down from heaven and made it publicly known that he has changed his mind on the concept. If i was lets say jewish and had my own resteraunt, and i didn't serve pork due to my belief that pork was a dirty meat, would you go to the mayor and convince him to force me to change my rule even though its against my religion, and causes the lord to look down on me with disdain? I dont think you would because its preposterous. So i believe we need to meet in the middle. Make a union that gives gays all the same rights and privileges as regular marriage, but make it a different term than marriage, or at least make it known that the church is not ordaining it. The trick is not to force people to do things against their will, but to find new methods to do things so that we can all co exist without such petty argument.

I just think people come up with poor excuses for gay marriage not to eligible..

they do, but many people are scared of change. its going to change i believe, but its going to take time.

I think that if a gay couple want to be want to be married, why can't they? There isn't a negative effect of a gay marriage, and you can see from the young man in this video that they can be just the same as a straight marriage. Infact I think that man was in more successful than any of us coming from opposite sex parents would be at that age. I also think that they provide a better family life for their children as well. His family seemed alot closer than most families today. So theres no reason a gay couple can't be married. Sure you can say that its wrong because its against Gods will and all, but being gay isnt a choice. Its who you are. God created man, and if being gay is really as terrible as they say it is, then God wouldnt have made them gay. And to the guy who says people that are for gay marriage aren't christian or don't belive in God, guess what? I go to church, believe in God, and I am for gay marriage. Who's to say that gay people can't have the same rights as straight people? The only difference is the gender we prefer. Why should gay marriage be outlawed and ridiculed? Where has prejudice ever gotten us?

I do not think religion has anything to do with marriage. After all atheists can get married can't they? Also if you have read the entire bible there are more things that god has said is wrong then gays, and i guarantee everybody has done something god has said is a sin. It is up to the people getting married whether they want their marriage to be religious or not. If we let religion be a part of our everyday lives we would go insane with all of the "rules" the bible states. Who is to say that gays shouldn't have the right to get married? If that is the case then maybe we should limit what straights can do.

Dakota, If you look at Americas past there has always been prejudice. And in the end it united America. Look at the way people treated colored folk, or women for that example. There has always been prejudice in the past and there will always be in the future. People are going to voice their opinions no matter how ignorant or naive they are.

I am against gay marraige but I also think that people have the right to chose what they want. they can make their own choices and I will make mine. I have friends that are gay and I have no problems with them or the way they act. I may not like it but im not going to hate them for it.

i actually have read the whole bible, and i spent 7 years of my life in a private christian school. it doesn't matter if you stole an orange or killed a man, a sin is a sin. what you dont understand is that god weighs all sins the same, and quite frankly if i really should tell the truth gay people are going to burn in a pit, just as that guy with the orange will if they dont change their ways and repent. The church is like a private club, and they say gays cant marry. end of story. they dont care if your not christian, they care about anatomy. anything else people want to ask questions about so i can answer them? or how about making false statements i can shoot down? listen unless we find an alternate to marriage, we should not and i will not stand up for gay marriage. perhaps if it was termed differently and done done in the name of god, i would just say more power to them. no matter how much you want to, you cant change the laws in the bible and call them legitimate.

"broxton anderson " so your saying that the homosexuals need their own form of union instead of marriage? I thought that most marriages were now legal constructs with religious ceremonies being a personal choice? Does anyone else think this touches on separation of church and government? Should there be a true separation between the phrases "civil union" and "marriage" or is there already and some of us just can't see it yet?

From a biblical point of view God made women for man and man for women, not man for man and women for women! #RealTalk

yes it should be a "true separation" that way it removes itself from religion which leaves religions no room to complain. I feel that a civil union should give ALL the same benefits as marriage to. must people truly complain so much over two words? its the same thing, just a different name, and can prevent millions of wasted arguments.

for those of you that say it is wrong according to the Bible, what happens if you were gay? It's not like you can change how you feel...and if "God" created all people "equal" why shouldn't they actually be treated equal? And i honestly think that simply because gays are the minority, they are being picked on...it's wrong...so why would "God create" people just to send to the deep south? ...just a thought

Broxton Anderson- You have read the bible, yet you chose to use the most uncredible source in the bible. Using Leviticus is ridiculous. Leviticus also states that it is okay to own slaves and that if one performs the act of beastiality, that person is to be murdered and so shall the animal. It also states that you may not speak to a women on her menstrual cycle and it is also forbidden to touch pig skin and for men to cut their hair. You are completely fine with ignoring these very radical notions, but when it comes to gay marriage you instantly are against it? Seems to me like there is a lot of hypocrisy in your ways. I am a Catholic, but I fully accept the institution of gay marriage. I myself am not gay, nor do I plan on becoming gay. Leviticus is outdated and does not apply to our modern lives. Do not pick apart the bible and try to sound as if you know the way people should be. Anyone can misquote the bible. If you have a problem with homosexuals, keep it to yourself. They have just as much rights as everyone else in this world and should not be denied rights such as being married. A few men who disliked gay people have started this constant circle of quoting Leviticus in order to make their way sound just. If anything, they are doing more wrong by corrupting the bible to use it to justify their personal views.

Same goes to Jay Cook. Talking on something you do not understand, or even researched, makes you arrogant and naive. If you are so fine with not allowing gays to be married, then you should be put back into slavery. Fair trade, yes? From a biblical view?

I compltely agree with you^ Most people that are against gay marriage claim to say they are against it mostly because its against the bible while over half of them have no idea what they are talking about and likly havent read the bible. I think people should be able to marry who they wish the gender should not matter.

It's too bad the bible is a bunch of tall tales exaggerated, can't trust religion for anything, it's a petty excuse for any argument.

From an evolutionary stand point homosexual relations don't have an impact other then thinning the human gene pool. Not that I'm against gay rights, but since everyone dismisses religion I thought it would be important to note that in the commonly held belief of evolution, unless a person has offspring, it's as if never existed. Just some food for thought...

Obviously what he is saying that from the stand point of evolution. He wasn't saying the homosexuals provide nothing to their societies.

If you think about it the bible states go forth and populate, and that's the premise of evolution....

Yeah thats a good point but maybe thinning the human population isnt all a bad thing. Also have you even considered how many children gay people adopted from other countris and places were they probably would have not had a good chance in living a good long heaalthy life. I dont understand how people can be so one minded about things. What if you were gay and wanted to marry a person you loved and you couldnt because judgmental people didnt approve?

I'm cool with gays as long as they don't try and make a move on me.

I agree with Brittany, everyone as a human being has their rights

i totally agree with riley its peoples life and they have their own rights

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).

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious

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.

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

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.

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.

but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.

With the way this is set up, i think its a well though out article. at first, i thought more people, more power, but its really to let the little guy have a voice, which i think is the biggest problem with the government today. A lack of connection.. Anybody agree with that?

George Washington warned us in his farewell address to avoid political parties. Now look at where they have gotten us. A House and Senate gridlocked in a partisan conflict in which none of the average people they are supposed to represent are even acknowledged.

I agree with the general idea of this. I think a Congress of 3,000 people is extreme, but I definitely agree that Congress should be expanded. We have a populations of over 300 million and only 435 people in the House, and that proportion is pretty ridiculous. There is definitely a lack of connection between representatives, because it is impossible to connect with nearly a million people.

The problem with this is that at this point it may be too late to get a smooth, efficient transition to any other form than the one we have, and the few ways there are to acheive this goal either involve massive chaos, which most find undesireable, or change so slow that we will never be satisfied with the transition's results, whether they achieve our preferred outcomes. Also, the shift could cause exploitation of congress that would be even worse for the people than our current predicament. So really, we are almost as well off just starting from the roots and reconstructing in the new way, despite the many downsides.... At least as far as I can tell. I can't say I have given the topic much thought.

I agree with the article and these comments because the House is supposed to represent "normal" Americans and and they wouldn't be able to do that with so few representatives.

Alex I have to disagree that the few ways to do this would cause chaos or move slowly. With the current setup we redraw districts and move them from one state to another based on population data received from the census every ten years. So lets say that today we decide to double the number of representatives to 870 starting in 2020 (the next census year). That would mean we would have 8 years to figure out the math, which can't be all that difficult in my opinion if they are able to do it every ten years when they redistrict, to find out how many congressional districts each state gets. Then when the new state district maps are drawn in 2020 after the census instead of drawing 435 districts we would draw 870. This way could work because we already move districts from state to state with population changes so states have experienced additional congressional districts being added to their district maps. I hope this made sense, it did in my head.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money

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.

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.

I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.

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

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.

delanie hi and i agree

I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.

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!.

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.

I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.

She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything

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!

I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She murdered more people than Jeffrey Dahmer and in a shorter time period too. Wow.

I'm not too sure how credible the story is. But, if it is true how had they not have noticed any type of connection between victims? Say, area of killing, type of person they are, etc.

At least she admits it. I think stories like this, are influenced by movies!

The murderers are really young to have done something like that!

She said she killed in Alaska and Florida, causing the police to investigate in both states. Which are probably the furthest states away. It would take a while for the police to investigate the cases. I think that she is trying to gain attention and possibly delay her trial.

This is crazy! Who could do something like that?

so she must have put a lot of thought into the murders so she could spare her self more time with the states working together

I think that this is crazy! How can she just sit there and say her and her husband had this planned since they met... Kinda stupid and maybe even a little psycho.

that's crazy! its a good thing they caught her. who knows how many more people she would have killed if she was still out there.

She said that the police wont find full bodies, only body parts.. from a wide range of ages starting at 13! The couple have had plans to kill together, but the victims never showed up. Barbour said she knew they were going to kill someone together since the day they met! How can someone even have the slightest thought of something like this!!

She's heading to prison as a young girl. She wants to be labeled as crazy as possible.

Women are crazy.

At least she admits it.

I seriously don't think she was able to kill just over twenty men since she was thirteen without one getting away or fighting her back. She'd have to take the men by surprise and even then, I don't think a thirteen year old would have successfully committed a murder and got away with it. I think she is just trying to prolong her trial and send the police on a search for the bodies or parts of these individuals she killed. Regardless, one life is time is prison twenty is a couple lifetimes.

I think they are rising more because people are getting used to covid now and kind of got less strict about the rules and are taking less precautions.

I believe that the number of cases is rising once again because the weather is getting colder, and viruses thrive in colder weather. I also think it's because people are starting to get used to covid as well and are getting too reckless.

No to mention its flu season so it's almost impossible to know if it's one or the other. It's also been said if you have the flu, but think it's covid and go to get a covid test, it could come out positive even though it's just the flu. Also, it's been proven that the covid test is only 90% or so effective and you can have a false test.

I agree with Abby I think that people are getting sick of having to deal with covid and just want it to be over. I think that this winter we will see a decrease in the number of other viruses and colds like the flu because we are wearing masks.

I agree with "xxchrysxx" I have also read about what you've mentioned. It makes you wonder how valid Covid-19 really is.

Going off of what Abby said, I also agree. I've seen many people walking without masks and not social distancing outside, and I think that's one of the main reasons the numbers are going to keep rising.

I think that because of the cold weather and flu season around the corner, the number will start to rise again.

People are not taking it as seriously as they should and not following guidelines that were put in place to protect us.

I think people haven't been taking COVID 19 seriously, and since it is getting colder and colder it will be harder to contain it.

People started loosening the rules and safety regulations lately, plus this is flue season and cold season so I guess its corona season too

I think people as time is going on are not taking it as seriously anymore. People are going out not always wearing masks or sanitizing or following the rules as they should.

I think that people are kind of forgetting that covid is a serious thing and aren't being as cautious as they were in the beginning. Flu and cold season is also coming and I feel like it will then be hard to tell who has covid or if it is just allergies/ flu.

I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before. They are going out in large groups of people, hanging around lots of people and not wearing a mask like they should.

I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before and people aren't wearing mask or didn't wear mask correctly.

I believe the numbers are rising again because people have become too comfortable. Covid arrived in the united states around January 20-22 of 202. Covid will have been around for 9 months or so now. That is almost a year that many lucky people have gotten to live through. People are just now assuming that, since they haven't gotten it yet they can be lax about the new protocols.

I think the cases are starting to rise again because states peeled back their lockdown measures and the cases began to rise

I think it is because it is not being taken seriously enough and the lockdown measures are being repealed.

I think that people know how serious this is they just don't care because they want it to be over. Also we should have done a better job with the lockdowns measures.

I think cases are starting to rise because people aren't taking it as serious as they were.

I think cases are starting to rise again because people are tired of the pandemic and aren't taking as much responsibility as they should. I think also social media influencers like TikTok stars and Kylie Jenner having major parties and posting on social media are influencing people to disregard the seriousness of the pandemic.

I think the numbers are rising because people are not being safe and as we get closer to the holidays they have parties and gathers which is where it is probably spreading.

I think that numbers are going to continue to rise dramatically because of the holidays, and people not taking it serious anymore.

I think that people have become complacent and aren't taking the proper precautions anymore, meaning that the numbers are going to steadily rise, especially around the holidays.

I believe the reason why the number of cases is going up so much is that it seems a lot of people forgot that we are still in a pandemic and go out and run around with big groups of people.

I feel since we're so far in the pandemic that people stopped and are not taking it as seriously. that the cases are rising and people are becoming lazy on masks and sanitary needs