Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items matching "road" in title, tags, annotations or url

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
peytonjs

Hillary Clinton Takes Presidential Campaign On The Road From New York To Iowa - 0 views

shared by peytonjs on 13 Apr 15 - No Cached
  •  
    Hillary Clinton, who officially announced her 2016 presidential campaign on Sunday, has already hit the road to the White House -- literally. The newly-minted candidate, has embarked on a road trip to Iowa, the first major stop on a nationwide tour. But she will apparently be making a few pit stops along the way.
qanderson136

Jeep Wrangler Engine Explodes After 50,000 RPM Rev - 2 views

  •  
    I think that being able to tow a trailer or car behind a truck should be something that anyone could do, but things like this make me think that there needs to be some type of additional training when doing so. What are your thoughts?
  •  
    I think it would be a good idea to require some form of training to be able to tow things on busy roads where others are in danger but I think for short distances on smaller less active roads there should be no training. In my opinion, it's the driver's responsibility to make sure they don´t destroy their vehicle but I also didn't think about the other people that could be killed for just driving near someone towing something the wrong way. In that case, I think there should be some sort of training so that others on the road are not at risk.
Bryan Pregon

Federal judge rules drivers allowed to flash headlights to warn of speed traps | Fox News - 1 views

  •  
    "A federal judge in Missouri ruled this week held that drivers have a First Amendment right to flash their headlights to warn other motorists of nearby police and speed traps. "
  •  
    Motorists flash lights at each other to warn about lots of different things, such as animals on the road, police being nearby, or slick roads. It would cause more harm than good to outlaw it.
  •  
    I think the person above me says it well. I don't see a HUGE problem with allowing the lights to be flashed in these situations (though I can see why some may be opposed).
Bryan Pregon

Iowa Lawmaker Wants To Bring Back The Death Penalty - 1 views

  •  
    I think life in prison would be worse than the death penalty to begin with
  • ...33 more comments...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    @ Dylan, you are not a prison warden, keep the topics on this page relevant to the conversation, and have some potential form of evidence to back up what you say. @ Joe, it is much less expensive to keep someone alive then execute them. The death penalty is much more expensive than life without parole because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process for capital cases. This process is needed in order to ensure that innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit, and even with these protections the risk of executing an innocent person can not be completely eliminated. Example State: California How much they could save: With life in prison as the maximum punishment for 1st degree murder, they would save over 1 billion dollars a year. Money that could be saved per year for taxpayers: 90,000 dollars a year. Taxpayers save money if they do not use the death penalty. http://www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42 Besides, many murder victims PREFER the idea of Life without Parole. If you do not believe this, check out this site made by the victims families: https://www.aclunc.org/docs/criminal_justice/death_penalty/Voices_from_California_Crime_Victims_for_Alternatives_to_the_Death_Penalty.pdf I have the feeling that nobody will even look at these links, but they are blunt evidence that it is cheaper, and makes more people happy, then when we use the death penalty. Oh.... By the way, 2nd degree murders (who cannot receive the death penalty) can do all that which you stated before Joe. Why should first degree murders be any different?
  •  
    The death penalty is dumb you should just let that sever his/or hers time in prison.
Natalie Wilson

Teenage girl suffered strokes, brain damage after smoking synthetic marijuana - 3 views

  •  
    class A reason why they should just legalize what is know to be a safe substance. Then maybe kids wouldn't be choking each other for a high... or putting stuff in their body they have no background knowledge on.
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    That's the risk of doing she lived on the edge and she fell off
  •  
    Something that is legal so you can get a high, it almosted costed her life and the worst thing is she wont ever be the same.
  •  
    I think that's a perfect example as to why they shouldn't legalize it, not the opposite.
  •  
    She may not of known what would've happened to her if she smoked the fake marijuana but, she did make a choice into smoking it knowing that it might not of been a good thing to her. Sure it's bad that she had seizures and became paralyzed. But, it was fake it wasn't the real thing maybe due to the chemicals in the drug triggered the seizures and other symptoms.
  •  
    I think that the fact that real marijuana is illegal while "fake" marijuana remains legal, is ridiculous. I think the fact that Marijuana being illegal is ridiculous in itself. If we can legalize alcohol, why not Marijuana? I can understand that there is no immediate test to see if one is high or not while there is for alcohol, but that is a minor step in the road. Why not take it, set an age restriction on it, then tax the poop out of it? Make some money while legalizing something that has no reason to not be legal and will continue to be used anyway.
  •  
    I think this proves that we should just go with the lesser evil and legalize it. Make it available at a certain age, yeah minors will be able to get a hold of it like they do with cigarettes and alcohol, but clearly marijuana is much safer than the legal "fake" stuff. It poses no harm to the user other than the fear of getting possession charges.
  •  
    This information should be spread so people know the effect that it can have on people if they don't know what is in it. They need to learn some of the effects of it before doing it. She chose to smoke it not knowing the effects of it and she won't ever be the same because of it. This story is a good example of why you need to be educated about what you are doing.
  •  
    That should prove why it would be wrong to legalize it, especially since a lot of young users don't know the side effects it can cause not just to themselves but to their loved ones as well.
  •  
    Well it was her choice, Kids only do it to be against "the man" if they legalized thaat itd be a few days of people smoking on every corner then everyone would get tired of it. There will always be substance abuse.
  •  
    Obviously fake and legal marijuana creates more problems than illegal marijuana does. If marijuana were to be legalized these problems wouldn't occur due to the fact that people wouldn't get the fake kind. Even tho marijuana does cause problems, it's not to that intensity where you have multiple strokes and your brain is half or three fourths dead.
  •  
    She should have known more about it before she did it
  •  
    I think this is a perfect reason why they shouldn't legalize it. If she wants to smoke then she should just go live in Colorado.
  •  
    I mean if she wanted to smoke she should of just moved to Colorado!
Lanny Mcalexander

Mexico Disappointed at Peña Nieto Meeting with Trump - 1 views

  •  
    MEXICO CITY - Mexicans responded angrily to what they saw as a weak performance by President Enrique Peña Nieto, who appeared to let Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump emerge unscathed from a meeting Wednesday. Peña Nieto tried gamely to take the high road and avoid arguing with Trump, who didn't waver an inch in his plans to build a wall along the two countries' border.
savannah131999

Putin: Trump agrees US-Russia relations 'must be straightened out' - 0 views

  •  
    In a speech at a foreign policy conference in Moscow, Putin said "during my recent telephone conversation with Mr. Donald Trump, our opinions coincided that the current, unsatisfactory state of Russia-US relations, undoubtedly must be straightened out. As I already have said, our country is prepared to go down our part of that road."
Bryan Pregon

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized - May. 10, 2016 - 18 views

  •  
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  •  
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  •  
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  •  
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  •  
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  •  
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  •  
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  •  
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  •  
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  •  
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  •  
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  •  
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  •  
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
Allie Moats

Atheists' road signs attack faiths of Romney, Obama ahead of Democratic convention - 3 views

  •  
    Just as the city of Charlotte, N.C., gears up to host the Democratic National Convention, an atheist group is mounting a billboard campaign attacking the religious faiths of President Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I think that they made a good point to keep religion out of their decisions they make for the US because there are so many people of different religions in our country. But they came across really offense and offended people of those religions. They had a good idea just not a good way of going about it.
  •  
    I find it rather hypocritical of the Christian Pastor to say it's never appropriate to insult another person when Christian ad campaigns quite frequently do just that. Objectively, this ad campaign is no more offensive than many campaigns launched by fundamentalist Christians. I fully agree with Silverman's quote, "We are not a Christian nation; we have never been a Christian nation and we never will be," although I would change it to say that we are not a religious nation. Religion needs to be taken out of political discussions, and people who try to bring it into politics need to wake up and realize that Church and State are separated and they can't force their beliefs onto other people.
  •  
    Had I been in Cullinan's position, I would have handled the request the same way he did because, morally, I believe it is wrong to advertise something that is expected to, and probably intended to, offend a group of people based on their religious beliefs. However, freedom is speech IS a huge component in our society. Whether we like to think it is or not, our government can't be, and isn't, based purely on morals.
Jeremy Vogel

Massachusetts judge rules for inmate's sex-change surgery - 3 views

  •  
    A federal court judge on Tuesday ordered Massachusetts officials to provide sex-reassignment surgery for a transsexual prison inmate, after determining that it was the only adequate treatment for the inmate's mental illness.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I think that from the physiological stand point this court case makes seance. How ever I think that our tax dollars should not be used to make this medical procedure happen.
  •  
    This is a very odd case to say the least. This prison inmate is at 13x the risk of a sexual assault as the average inmate. So, the question is, is the protection of a near-insane murder worth tax payer dollars? I don't think so, but something has to be done about the inmates safety, perhaps being placed alone, or with people of the preferred gender of the inmate? In the event of tax payers paying, is it really that much? The government comes up with about $2,650 billion yearly from income tax alone. To add on, it is really not that often that this expensive of a situation arises. Is it really that big of a deal for something that almost never happens, but may help someone in the near future?
  •  
    This may be what's "best" for the inmate, but he/she (no offense intended, I just don't know what to call them) murdered someone. Don't you think that a murderer should in some way "pay" for what they've done. They don't deserve the best, but they also don't deserve to be sexually assaulted. Also, tax payer dollars should not go towards things like this, that money is for the betterment of the community and/or the country. To fix the sexual harassment problem, the inmate should be put somewhere alone. Yet, another question rises, what about all the other inmates (male or female) who are sexually assaulted? We can't worry about them all, plus they're in there for a reason, they don't deserve tax money to go towards protecting them whenever they put others in danger that led them to be in prison. So, the answer is no, it's not worth it. It's not tax payer's problem.
  •  
    if this person wanted to become a women then wouldn't they prefer men? which means that if they are 13 times the risk, wouldn't that be a good thing since they like guys? well if it was a rape then i understand but there are sometimes in prison when it isn't a rape or sexual assault, both want to do it. in that case that person should consider themselves lucky to be around guys all the time.
  •  
    haha what if this dude was just really straight and thought that if he gets a sex change that he will be placed with da lady's so he wouldn't be around all da dudes n stuff .
  •  
    I agree with Payton just place her alone if its for her safety. If its for her mental condition send her to a prison mental health facility.
  •  
    I just don't understand how a PRISON INMATE is allowed that luxury of sex change surgery. Especially considering the price and how much it really is causing taxpayers
  •  
    I personally think that this was a great decision. I believe that a person's mental health is the most important aspect in the road to any sort of recovery. Even though the transgender inmate did commit a murder, she deserves to have the resources to stabilize her well-being. Should the rest of America have to pay for it? Perhaps not, but I don't mind helping out someone who desperately needs it. Although, I guess that depends on your belief on the importance of mental health.
  •  
    Jenny, this is really not a matter of sexual interests. If this person wants a sex change, it may be because of this sexual interest, but then again, it may not. They may simply want to be a female. The funding should come from the inmate, but the inmate cannot earn funds while behind bars, perhaps the inmate should be allowed to work up to being allowed to have a sex change operation.
Janeth Cano

Calif. HS student devises possible cancer cure - CBS News - 6 views

  •  
    If you ever worry about the future of America, there is no need: it is in good hands. A high school student named Angela is proof of that. We think you'll agree she is nothing short of amazing. CBS News correspondent Steve Hartman met her on the road.
  •  
    This is great!!! People have much to look forword to with this girl around. We really need more people like her.
Abaigh Plummer

Obamacare signup delayed -- for 2015 - 0 views

  •  
    Washington (CNN) -- After the many bumps, ruts and roadblocks the Affordable Care Act has run into, health officials in Washington have decided to delay open enrollment in Obamacare -- not this year, but a year down the road.
mya_doty

Hurricane Odile slams Mexican resorts - 1 views

  •  
    Is Hurricane Odile headed your way? Share your photos and videos with CNN iReport, but only if you can do so safely. (CNN) -- Hurricane Odile snapped palm trees like twigs, washed out roads and left tourists trapped in Mexican resorts Monday.
  •  
    It's never a good thing for a hurricane to happen, but I'm kinda glad we live somewhere these don't happen.
Bryan Pregon

Special Report - Nebraska v. Colorado: The War on Weed - 22 views

  •  
    "Nebraska Attorney General Doug Peterson in western Nebraska as he built the state's lawsuit against Colorado. His ultimate goal is to shut down the pot industry. "To me, people are being sold a bill of goods from people who stand to make millions from this industry. Our culture is at a pretty critical time where a whole generation of youth are at risk and adults need to step up and say this is a real potential harm to fight against.""
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I feel that if they try to close down the pot industry they will just be wasting their time. People will still be using marijuana even if its not legal or being grown.
  •  
    I think that if people try and shut down the pot industry, that it will be hard and it wont be easy. pot users and pot lovers will always use pot and will do all most anything to keep it legal.
  •  
    It surprises me that the traffic related fatalities in people who had marijuana in their systems has been raised so much. I didn't realize it was that big of a problem. Maybe adults do need to fight back more for this potential harm.
  •  
    I don't feel they should be fighting this war. This because they don't have a valid point saying that marijuana is harmful in all actuality peanuts kill more people annually than marijuana and actually there hasn't ever been a death directly caused by it. Further more alcohol and cigarettes are far more harmful and are still legal.
  •  
    I think Nebraska has every right to sue the state of Colorado because they can't contain it in their state. That or they need to change their law saying only people who have a Colorado ID can purchase it.
  •  
    I feel like legalizing Marijuana is a good idea in my opinion. It can be used to help man medical conditions and also is saving people's lives that really need it. It is used as a stimulate. If the government would legalize it they would make a profit by taxing the product. Therefore benefiting themselves. People are going to do what they want with marijuana, there would have to be certain restrictions on it though. I don't think Colorado will regret this law because it's not only helping them but their society.
  •  
    i feel like nebraska is just doing everything it can to get its way and not let the people have what they want. if nebraska would just make it legal, these problems would cease
  •  
    Although people are going to continue to use marijuana illegally, that doesn't mean we should stop trying to clean our states of it. Shutting down the pot industry may take awhile, but it's a good goal.
  •  
    I can see why Sheriff Adam Hayward of Deuel County, Nebraska, would want it shut down. It has a dispensary near their county, and makes it a little easier to bring marijuana into Nebraska. And may cost more for patrolling.
  •  
    I think no matter what you do marijuana will always be here. At least as long as it continues to grow people will continue to use it. I think Nebraska has a good point on how it is affecting costs for more paroling and road searches for people trying to sneak the drugs over, but the world is changing in so many ways and people just need to learn to adapt. I think Nebraska needs to find a way to adapt some how because it's their state thats having problems don't blame Colorado.
  •  
    This should not be tolerated, Colorado is Colorado and Nebraska is Nebraska. There's different laws.
  •  
    The only reason I am for the legalization of marijuana is because medical marijuana could help my mother. She has a severe nerve condition called trigeminal neuralgia. This is an inflammation if the main nerve in the face. There is research to suggest that medical marijuana could ease the suffering of people like her without all the health risks with what they use now as treatment. The current treatment is round the clock narcotics and this damages the liver. My mother already has liver damage so this could be a safer alternative.
  •  
    I think Nebraska could be taking it a bit to far with going to court about it be I also think Colorado could be doing more to prevent this.
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    "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...
  •  
    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?
  •  
    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.
  •  
    Sanders will probably win a few in the midwest but I think Hillary will stay in front, trump as well. Cruz might drop out.
emmawendland

Divided Senate Republicans Turn to Health Care With a Rough Road Ahead - 1 views

  •  
    "So the Senate majority leader's decision to create a 13-man working group on health care, including staunch conservatives and ardent foes of the Affordable Care Act - but no women - has been widely seen on Capitol Hill as a move to placate the right as Congress decides the fate of President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement."
1 - 20 of 23 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page