"A federal appeals court ruled Friday the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner when it sought to end an Obama-era program that shields young immigrants from deportation."
This was incredibly amusing to me. I would really like to doubt this was his intention (perhaps a terrible spray-tan mishap?), as you would have to think very low of your voters to do so purposely. However, he has also received a lot of flak for seemingly pandering to everyone for votes -- this certainly fits that image.
Pretty sure 47% of the Latino population is on government aid, so, he's just doing what he can to try and have any chance of winning the up coming election. After his comments, I am pretty sure he is going to struggle to gain anymore aide.
even if he did "dye his face brown" i dont see how he think's that would get him more votes. probably was like ember stated that it was terrible spray tan or too much sun.
I really don't think Mitt Romney would do this because he is desperate for votes, I think the election is running a very close race. Again, he is only human, it could have been a bad spray tan or too much sun on his face or maybe someone who who was getting him "camera ready" put the wrong shade of make up on his face. It could be a number of possibilities, and for people to assume that he "dyed his face brown" to get more votes is ridiculous.
I'm not sure if we as a society, are prepared for such a big idea to be handled. The Justices are going to, if they take up the case, make some major leaps and bounds for the community, or pretty much end same sex marriage. If the court does take up the case, I am going to want to follow it extremely closely.
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.....
I am glad to see opinions on both side of this issue in the comments (lots of good information in many posts and "food for thought"). 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/yUIP3
In all reality, gay marriage being a possibility to be legalized, is very interesting. Our constitutional founders, from what many anti-gay's claim, say that the founders were all religious, and did not support gay marriage. The problem with that is the constitutional wording, freedom of religion. Another issue is separation of church and state, this the facts Mr. Pregon gave are interesting, but can we say the religion is a reason as to why gay marriage should/should not be legal?
Something funny, although probably irrelevant, is the idea of a church for the gay community to worship as they please, and is accepting of gay marriage. Form some sort of religion out of this, and by that, the gay community can simply do as they please, and get married as they want just by the basis of our constitution. I don't know why, but that thought just came to mind.
"U.S. customs officials must have a reasonable justification before snatching your laptop at the border and scanning through all your files for incriminating data, a federal appeals court ruled today."
Koreans success with nuclear missiles is really scary fir the United Nations, China needs to go against them and help the rest of the United Nations cut off their resources.
I think that North Korea is bluffing because they dont have enough resources to fight a war. It would be suicide for them to attempt to attack the U.S or other countries in the United Nations.
I hope North Korea is bluffing, With their success in Nuclear Weaponry, you can only take them seriously because we're scared of WWIII or any other type of Nuclear Holocaust. They have the upper hand.
"The Supreme Court accepts only a fraction of the appeals submitted to it, and in May it declined to review the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who like Thomas-Rasset is still fighting the recording industry in court."
When we use something from the school like a uniform or a book and it isn't returned we are fined the price of the item. I lose my basketball uniform, I pay $40. How come when this women takes something that is worth 24$ she must pay 10,000x what it is worth to the owner?
"The top European court has ruled Facebook and other internet companies can be forced to remove certain content worldwide.
If a European court orders a company to take down content, such as a post, that company must remove it everywhere it appears.
The decision poses huge potential problems for internet companies. It can not be appealed."
"China has warned that it's "seriously concerned" after President-elect Donald Trump questioned whether the United States should keep its long-standing position that Taiwan is part of "one China.""
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 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.
trump16, just because he says he is going to doesn't mean he will actions speak louder than words. And Trump should be more cautious and have in mind the relationship China and the US have with each other.
For the Republican nomination it is going to come down to if the true conservatives come out and support or not. The nomination will be for Romney if they do not come out and Santorum will win if they do. Gingrich, Bachman, and Huntsman have no chance in my opinion. Paul on the other hand will be an interesting story. He is appealing to the younger voters, so his success will be based upon if the <25 population comes out to vote.
The latest victim, a 24-year old Orthodox Jewish man in New York was walking home when he overheard his potential attackers daring each other to knock him out. The assault is being considered a hate crime.
I don't understand what is the appeal of being hit so hard you become unconscious. its extremely dangerous what if you fall and snap your neck or crack your head open and start choking on your own blood because you cant roll over.
I wonder who was twisted enough to invent this, and better yet, who was dumb enough to start spreading it around. When did it become okay to walk up to your buddies and be like 'I dare you to knock that guy cold' and even worse, for them to actually do it?
This is the most pointless and idiotic "game". This type of thing can be very dangerous and whoever participates in it deserves to be punished severely.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals held in the case, which was brought by the ACLU, that the telephone metadata collection program "exceeds the scope of what Congress has authorized."
Bureau spokesman Edmond Ross said that the inmates are all drug offenders. They became eligible for release after going through an appeals process following the recent restructuring of drug sentences by the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The release will take place between October 30 and November 2, Ross said, adding that the number will grow in the future.
I wonder what the whole story is. I wonder what the series of events were. I don't imagine the cop shooting at random victim, but then I also don't know what the victim did.
Crazy to think that this may have happened many other times, yet there are not witnesses to say so. Also, it makes me wonder if there was something that triggered the officer to react in the manner that he did.
I think these types of articles need to stop being publicized because rogue cops are being exposed. People focus on the bad instead of the good and things like this is making a lot of people dislike cops for unjustified and unfair reasons because although this article may be true, a lot aren't.