Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i think spending $900,000 per inmate is way to much to be spending on every single inmate that is in the prison

This is not a very professional thing to say especially about the president

This "leader" is insane, he's making threats to our people and taking simple manners of politics to a new level of crazy. For example on the controversy about illegal logging he said "cut the trees and I cut your heads." Like who says this publicly about another country. This was just one of many things this man has proclaimed about Obama.

I think that the Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte is sort of exaggerating his points to look tougher than he is, especially when he backs away from his statement about the president.

What was said by President Rodrigo Duterte was very unprofessional. It calls his ability to maintain the Philippines into question. He says very inappropriate things, and does things that shouldn't and/or aren't legal.

Honestly he shouldn't even be president if this is the crap he's going to pull! Rape and drug cartels are illegal and it won't get stopped cause when you are involved in that you make bank. A lot of his comments remind me of Trump all the sexual remarks especially.. Makes me sick.

He shouldn't have talked about the president like that especially in an interview. It looked very unprofessional for someone big like him to say that.

This guy should not be president. He is immature and childish. All his comments on important topics are crazy and not professional.

I think that the comments of the President Rodrigo Duterte are very inappropriate, because he's a leader and he should be an example for the other people, but he is acting like a baby, insulting people without any sense.

Obviously this guy is a crazy cannibal and should not be in a leader position if he can't be an adult and level headed about things. He seems to get angry very quickly and that's not a good characteristic of a good leader.

The comments by the President are outrageous. A government official should not be saying that to news media knowing that this will get out. He acts like a little baby. He is asking to get shwacked.

Just like Trump he uses his words to try and gain power but instead Duterte used choice words that insulted the president and because the cancellation of their meeting the president of the Philippines had somethings to say that he would have done and he put his words into scenarios that made him disrespectful and should not be a president if he acts like that.

this dude is a savage. He is a crazy little guy and i would be scared to visit or live in the philippines

Donald Trump has promised many things since he started running for president some more difficult and outrageous then others. The easier ones and would be the keystone pipeline to finish it to connect it form Canada to Nebraska but harder ones such as building a wall on the border

Donald Trump blatantly said he wanted a wall, a great, big, beautiful wall to help improve border control, perhaps even completely stop it. I personally think the idea is ridiculous, building a wall? That's the plan? It must've taken him 5 minutes to come up with this idea. I understand improving border control, but trying to implement a wall that stretches halfway across America is just insane. That "promise" will more than likely never happen.

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 really do personally believe this women should be jailed for murder, but legally, it would be difficult to get a conviction. Due to our legal system, we have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, (about 90% chance) that she killed her baby. She gave a second story, so one of the two stories must be true. 50/50 chance, good luck actually proving it. All she has to say is, "I said that to hurt him, and I gave the baby away," and she would probably just be convicted for kidnap. Either way it is a tough case, I think I may have to follow it.

I agree with Payton she should be jailed for murder. I believe that she did kill her son, she wouldn't have told him that she killed him if it wasn't true unless she's crazy, which she probably is. None of that would have happened if she would've just gave the father custody, but instead she left for Texas with her son.

I also think that she should be put in jail. If you're gonna say you killed him, it's usually not something you're lying about, and if she just gave the baby away, someone would have seen the stories and said "Oh I have this child" or something like that, but no. Nobody said anything so it goes to show that it all comes back to her.

I agree the mother should be jailed. They even have proof that the mother killed thee baby by sending a text to her husband saying that she killed the baby and dumped the body in a dumpster somewhere in Texas.

Almost three years later, his disappearance is still a mystery. And a trial that gets underway this week may finally provide some answers to what happened.

I agree with the both of you. No sane, rational person would say anything about killing their own child, whether or not it's true. I believe that she is guilty and should be jailed and have to go under a serious psychiatric assessment. I feel so bad for the father, this must have been such a traumatic experience.

I too believe she should be jailed for murder of her child. She is not rational nor sane for making these allegations if they're untrue. Libby is right saying she needs to undergo some serious psychiatric assessments. I don't understand how a mother could do that to her own young child and blame it on the father. Just a very messed up thing to do or even imply on doing.

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

the slide show itself doesn't make it clear but remember these #'s are for yearly salary.

agreed that is why we are in the whole!

Thats just wrong.

Yeh thats crazyy

It's pretty insane to think that any people would have to make a decision to abort their child or keep the baby even though it would be given a life of pain, like Zink's baby would've endured. Normally I would state that I'm very against abortion, but under some certain cases, (like having a baby with a deformed brain that would have to be connected to life support and live with pain), I think the option to have an abortion should be given to some people at 20 weeks or 24 weeks.

I do not completly agree with abortion, if she was 20 weeks in and the baby was fine and everything was going good then I think it would be wrong for her to of had an abortion, but since the baby had a malformed brain she was putting the baby out of pain the it might of had in the further, it was like putting a dog down its sad but needed to be done in her point of veiw.

I am pro-choice, and believe that any woman should have the right to an abortion. It sounds like they don't really know when babies can feel pain. I think that they should look into that more and find out for sure before passing a law against abortion after so many weeks. It could be harmful to pass one long before or long after babies can feel pain. I think that it was the good thing to do to have an abortion so her child wouldn't have a life full of pain. It's a good thing that abortion is legal, a woman should have the right to do what she wants with her body. For example, they could have been raped, not had enough money to support the child, had a drug or alcohol problem, etc. Adoption isn't an "easy way out" of abortion, having to be pregnant for 9 months and giving away a baby you didn't want or couldn't raise is very traumatizing and stressful. It is good that abortion is legal and nobody should get to take that right away from a woman.

I think women should have the right to have an abortion if they wanted to but to have a limit at how many times they can do so. It is true that if your'e raped and aren't financially well then it will be troublesome. It is better than having to burden the child as well but there is a limit.

How do you forget about the very thing that was growing inside you for 9 months

everyday i lose more faith in humanity

Was she on anything. You think she would have heard the child in the back claiming she thought she dropped the child off.

How do you forget your 8 month old son is in the backseat?

You can;t forget a baby. They will cry and you would know if you loved and cared about your child as to if they would still be in the car or not.

If you forget about having your baby in the car, then that's just considered bad parenting and she should just be charged.

New parents have been shown to be more forgetful right at first because of the huge change in life that they don't realize it. But this is going way to far with it, death happened, usually it's only for a minute not long enough for an infant to die.

i don't feel like it was on accident i think they meant to do it but they didn't mean to be gone as long but time just didn't intend for anything wrong to happen

I find the reason to be incredibly sketchy, but I do believe the mother did not mean to kill her child. Perhaps she left her child in the car and meant to only for a small amount of time but forgot?

This is crazy

I don't think she intentionally killed her kid but it's crazy how you can forget about your baby being let in the car

How do you just forget?

How forgot your child? this is so sad

That's insane why wouldn't the mother check the backseat before she got out of her car.

I don't think you can just forget your child in a car, this child normally always has your attention

I can't believe this.

If she said she really dropped him off at the daycare center she would have been conscious of taking him there. Also there should be footage of her dropping him off. If it shows she never showed up, shes obviously lying about that instance and there is more to the story.

okay first off, if you need your purse or something material in the back to remember you have a baby, you shouldn't have one. second off, what the heck did she do when she went to the daycare? how did she imagine giving the baby over to the daycare or something?

how do you forget about your child that is only 8 months old. This is just heart breaking.

Completely heartbreaking. How can you "forget" about a child?

This is awful. These officers need to be fired, and put in prison for rape.

how and why would she consent to sex in custody i don't believe it and feel like they should be punished.

This is horrible, they took advantage of her.

That's just insane, who would do something like that.

This is why cops need to be reevaluated.

I think giving the women a new weight room was the right thing to do. They are both playing in one of the biggest college tournaments in the US and they deserve to be treated fairly. I also think it's great that some big-name NBA players came forward to address the situation to help bring more attention to it.

Giving the women the better weight room was definitely the smart choice. They definitely deserve it, but I see why it wasn't there in the first place. The NCAA loses money every single year having a women's tournament so they just put more money into where they were getting the most money. It was still not fair at all and the girls don't deserve that.

I believe that it's insane that this situation even happened. If the women had just gotten a weight room like the men's from the beginning, then this whole situation could have been avoided. It's honestly laughable that officials gave the women just a single rack of dumbbells thinking that it would be fine. In all, I'm glad that they fixed their mistake but this situation could have been easily avoided.

I think that it was a messed up situation it was like that before and that should have happened a while ago. The women's team deserves a good gym to work out in with the right accessible tools to get their workouts in. They should be having the support to grow individually and as a team.

I'm glad that this issue was addressed, and apologized for. It was so unfair for the women who played sports

I think that giving the women a new and improved weight room was the smart choice. It is unfair for men to have a superior weight room over women.

Adding more weights and improving the weight room was the right thing to do. But why would they give women so much less than the men. Both genders have equal talents so why discriminate between them.

I'm glad that the women got an improved weight room. It is kinda sad how no one would of known about this if the women wouldn't have said anything about it.

South Carolina has the electric chair and now a firing squad as their execution methods. It's absurd that the firing squad passed and that South Carolina is now the fourth state to allow this. Personally, I don't believe that there should be any execution methods and this just seems completely crazy to me that a firing squad is now one.

I find it kind of funny they would use a firing squad. It is a waste of money and a lot more extra work and time spent on worthless people. I believe executions for those kinds of people should be quick, easy, and cheap. Firing squads just seem ridiculous especially since it's not like they are being attacked and need to use multiple people for one person.

I don't understand why they would choose a firing squad of all things. I feel like there are more humane ways to execute someone but I suppose some people may want to go out with a bang.

I don't understand why this is even a thing. No one should be sentenced to death and if they were sentenced to death, it should be a humane way, not a firing squad or electric chair.

This is just stupid. This would be such a painful and awful way to go, even if you did something bad enough to get sentenced to death. Imagine what these people's families would be thinking, watching their son or daughter getting shot to death.

I don't understand why South Carolina thinks this should be aloud. Granted the death would happen anyway but having people line up and shoot people just seems inhumane and unnecessary.

I personally don't understand how they came to the decision that this was smart or found a way to justify it. I don't think that it is something that is going to be used in other states...hopefully. I think that this should be intervened by the national government considering how inhumane the idea is.

I agree with Joey, this seems like a recreational activity that fire squads would enjoy participating in, rather than an act of justice.

I think this is a pretty cruel punishment even for large criminals and seems like its more for the firing squad than it is about justice.

Having a firing squad as an execution method is ridiculous. It's a cruel and inhumane punishment that shouldn't be used, and the fact that four states have it listed as an execution method is disturbing.

I think that there should be a death penalty in cases where the criminal is too dangerous to be kept in captivity but a firing squad is an insane method. Not only is it a waste of money, time, and effort but do they really need a full firing squad for one person? That just makes no sense and seems nothing but cruel and disturbing.

I disagree with this they should not be adding new way of execution. This a cruel way to punish people and it should not be allowed. There are other way to punish people other than getting violent.

I think a firing squad is very extreme. I think the death penalty in general is very extreme. I can't believe South Carolina is the 4th state to allow this as well. There are definitely other ways to go about this than a firing squad or a death penalty at all.

I don't believe as we are such an advanced society that we should resort back to such a harsh capital punishment.

I can't see a death sentence not being a cruel punishment let alone the electric chair as the method, but South Carolina seeking to go further by adding the firing squad is even worse the fact that anyone would be convinced this is acceptable is astounding to me and shows the disconnect people have from the people around them

I really hope they get more injections, so the executions can be more humane again

I do not think that they should be banning Dr. Seuss in schools and I do not think that he came out to be racist with his books. when he started wringing that was how people did and things were back then and today's society is so sensitive to everything. so many kids grew reading his books that I just think it is wrong.

Dr. Suess being canceled is just going too far. He wrote children's books in the 1950s, back then things like pictures in a children's book were not viewed as something that could be racist and I believe that that is not what he intended at all. These books were made for the entertainment of children.

I don't feel Dr. Seuss books were published to spread hate on certain races. I could be wrong but if it was, they would be canceled far before now. I think these books should not be banned due to the fact, if they were racist, we could learn from the past. We all know the 1950s had minstrel shows which promoted things such as black face. We do not ban those videos or other past history evidence because we learn from those things. It's all history and we can not change what happened. All we can do is learn to be better.

I agree with laceyperry067 I don't believe that there was ill intent behind the books it was just what was "acceptable" at the time. I don't think it would be right the erase the work of a good writer, but as a person of color we should neither condone nor promote those kinds of images in children's books. Books like this, with dated ideas, should be handled differently in order to teach right from wrong. We have to learn from the ugly truth in order to grow and move past it.

I think it's utterly ridiculous that they're banning his books! Maybe he was racist, maybe he wasn't. But he wouldn't put that kind of thing in a children's book!

I grew up reading Dr. Seuss books and enjoyed reading them. It's insane to think that they are now being canceled. Granted, I feel like all we can do is move past this and learn from it. However, I do not think that erasing his literature is a good idea.

it feels strange that they are not going to be sold

A few things. First off, as a response to Zeak as far as my knowledge is concerned, the books are still going to be sold. (Unless a business decides not to sell them.) What's happened is that they aren't going to be printed anymore, new copies aren't going to be made. Second, as a general thing does everyone actually know the books that aren't being printed? None of them are particularly famous, except for maybe "And to Think that I saw it on Mulberry Street." As well, it's not some outside force making the Seuss estate stop publishing these books, they willingly decided to do so. No-one is being "Cancelled," here. As well, it's things like this (https://static01.nyt.com/images/2021/03/05/books/03DRSEUSS5/merlin_184489674_86a1b9c7-d76d-45d0-b52c-0976d003a730-mobileMasterAt3x.jpg) (https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/nationalpost/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/If-I-Ran-the-Zoo.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&w=400) that are the reasons the books are being pulled from shelves, which have fairly racist and stereotyped depictions of Chinese people.

I do not think that if dr seuss was that liberal he wouldn't have intentionally tried to portray them badly, i feel like a lot of people are taking a lot of things to far they just try to nick pick everything out to find something wrong with someone and come after to just to great drama.

I do not think that his books should be banned because his books were more of its time. The books were for children to read and enjoy not for them to read and be racist.

I don't think that we should cancel Dr.Suess. His books were fine before and then suddenly everyone hates them? If you are offended by his books for some reason, then just don't read them, it's as simple as that. You shouldn't go as far as banning them.

I think its weird to stop producing a kids picture book because kids really don't take books that deeply. Plus at such a young age the kids don't understand much of today's society so it makes no sense to stop producing books that were made in the 50's.

i think cancel culture is absurd. yes, there are offensive things everywhere, but cancelling them won't rid the world of it. i think it's good that people are recognizing certain things as... insulting, but banning childrens' books?

Children are very impressionable at a young age, and supplying them with books with such messages may put racial stereotypes into their heads.

I read these books as a kid and it didn't influence me to believe stereotypes, I just read them for fun like a little kid would and it had no effect on my future.

I think that children shouldn't be reading things that may affect their opinions on people, which I understand how these books potentially could. However, I was not negatively affected by any of these books and can also see how people may just see them as children's books. I see other people commenting about how things were different in the 1950s and that is why it should be allowed, but things are different now. We don't need racist children's books from the past, and if that's Dr. Suess then I feel like he was banned for a good reason.

Because of all of the people who are in the Republican party, and very strong with their beliefs in this party, I feel that future elections are going to have more Republican votes and we will have the same thing happen with what happened with Donald Trump. I feel that Trump will make some sort of comeback with his belief that the election was rigged with the fact he did not "win" and will make another appearance in politics or any other form of big media.

The Republican Party is a joke. Over the past four years, it has turned into the party of Trump and little else. I fully expect, nothing else considered, that he will run for president again in 2024. Unfortunately, politics aren't much better on in the Democratic party. Due to the influx of "Never Trump" Republicans being welcomed with open arms into the Democratic Party, they've been shoved further to the right than ever before. America lacks an opposition on anything but optics. I expect American politics to take a hard right-wing turn in the next few years, or at minimum America's swing to the right will continue in full-force.

I fully expect Trump to run again for president in 2024 as well as an exponential amount more in votes towards the republican party.

I will expect Trump to run again in 2024 if or after the people see that voting him out of office goes and if they like this better then i dont think he will.

I expect that Trump will more then likely end up running for president again. You can see that the people currently in power don't want that because of how hard they are trying to impeach him so he can't run again.

I think that the amount of power he has over the republican party is insane. It makes sense that a lot of Republicans would vote for him but because the ones that went against him received immediate backlash it makes me wonder if truly people voted for what they truly wanted or ensure that they still had a positive image.

i think trump is smart enough to know that he does not have a chance of winning in 2024. I also disagree with Brandon, saying the republican party is a joke could make a few people mad, that would be like saying the democratic party is full of snow flakes. these are people beliefs while we may have different ones we still need to respect one another. Respect is key in this world its time we start showing some.

I think Trump did a lot of monumental things throughout his presidency (not all for good reasons). Although I wouldn't doubt him to run again for president in the future I think he knows he wouldn't win. I think he has caused problems that will last for years to come. Trump holds a lot of power within the Republican party and has always made sure it's been known. I think people are genuinely scared of him due to the power he holds. I don't want someone running my country that is feared by its people.

I agree with everyone who says that Trump will likely try to run again at some point. When he left office, he even said something about how he would try to be in politics later again. He still has a lot of supporters who will try to get him into office. However, if he didn't win this election, especially against Biden, I don't think he'll win another. In 2024, most Gen Zs will be able to vote, and based on what I've seen on social media, a lot of young people are not agreeing with Trump. Therefore, I doubt he would win popular vote and- most likely- he won't win electoral vote either.

Great to read comments so far... does anyone want to give thoughts on whether you think the Republican party leaders will embrace the Trump voter-base to avoid having him run as a third party in 2024 (which could split the support they need to defeat Democrats)

I think the Republican Party will be forced to embrace the Trump voter-base. If Trump was to create his own party, I think there's a very real possibility it could become more popular than the republican party. As the article stated, 70% of Republicans believed that Trump being acquitted was the right decision which is a very large majority. This alone shows that he still has a lot of his influence in the party, but his run as a republican president was marked by him tailoring the party to fit around him and not necessarily the actual ideals of the Republican party. The amount of people he got to to the capitol off of just one rally illustrates their attachment to him rather than the party. So if Trump was to detach himself from the party then since his voter-base is attached to him rather than the party they would very likely come with him and undoubtedly take an irreparable number of voters from the republican party, but in worst-case scenario takes a majority leaving Trump on top of the Republican party.

I disagree with what Jackie said about how Trump won't have a chance against Biden in the next election because in the past president Stephan Grover Cleveland served two term that were not consecutive. So it is possible it's probably just more difficult.

I think that Trump is going to run again maybe in the next election, saying he'd be in politics again in the future. He just made a mess of everything, if he does run again, I doubt he'd become president since this election showed there were more people against him rather than with him. This whole impeachment thing is just whack.

I don't completely understand the Freedom of Speech compared to the Inciting of a Riot. I think that what he said invited the people to the capital and was inciting it, but if you compare that to having the freedom of speech, then why can he say this and not get in trouble. Anyways, even if he hadn't completely incited the riot, he was continuously tweeting about how the "patriots" were doing nothing wrong... okay... His video which he had released was considerably compared to someone speaking to children reminding them that he "loved" them and to be safe. He was trying to "cover" it up by putting out the video by making it seem as if there were no consequences to their actions and to just leave as if what they weren't doing was illegal. I think that if the voters were able to vote anonymously, that the outcome would have definitely turned out much different.

i agree with the people saying trump will try to run again but i think his chances of winning are very low despite the fact that he still has tons of supporters. i think the only way trump would win is if Biden really messed things up in these next four years.

I would not be shocked if Trump runs again but it might be a little harder for him. We will see how Biden does for the next four years. If he does goof things I'm guessing more people will like him more.

I agree with the people saying that Trump will run for president again in 2024. He may have a lot of people that hate him, especially people of power that influence the majority of people, but he has many supporters as well. This makes his chances of winning lower. But also, I think that by that time more people may choose him after Biden being president because already, people regret voting for him after new revelations.

The reason Donald Trump has so much power and influence over the Republican party is that to republicans he was the last "hope" with the Bush's not being eligible and with no predecessors, Trump was easily able to take the spot of the GOP frontrunner in the 2016 election and with a very split four years that brought the country to more diverse levels(falls on both party lines) Trump's impact was easily picked up by republicans, look at MO Sen. Hawley who was one of the congressional leaders on Jan. 6th who voted to overturn the election results and the impeachment trial just recently. No matter if Trump runs we know he will stay in the political light and his influence will be heavily given to republicans in congress and the GOP front runner for 2024 wont be to far from Trumps ideology.

I also agree with the ones saying that Trump has extreme power over the Republican party. We all know he said he was going to try again to get back on the reelection path. He might be very supported by his own party but it doesn't mean that others will

I agree that Trump will run for president in 2024. But even though he has power over the Republican party, I think it'll be harder for him to win. After the whole situation with the capital building, I think some of his supporters have been rethinking their support of him.