Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

People should not be allowed to bring guns to the polling stations. These can be used as a form of voter intimidation which is a crime, though at it's core I have respect for people's right to carry, guns should never be used to scare or intimidate voters

This should not be allowed. This could cause many harmful things including intimidation and crimes against a particular group of people.

No, people should not be allowed to bring guns to polling stations.

No, people shouldn't be allowed to bring guns to voting sites. I feel like this will create more problems than solutions.

This should not be allowed

I dont think people should be able to bring guns to a voting site

This should not be able to allowed

I don't think there is a reason they should even feel the need to bring a gun to a voting site. But no they shouldn't bring a gun.

This should not be allowed I think that this could cause major issues with other people and safety.

People should not be allowed to do this. What would the purpose of having a gun be? Something bad could happen if this was allowed.

This shouldn't be allowed. It's unnecessary and could cause an even bigger issue than there would have been if a gun hadn't been brought.

i feel having fire arms there would not be okay and it would not be safe many things could haoppen it could cause chaos

Thanks for posting this Jessica! A good amount of responses so far. I will post a wikipedia link for state-by-state carry rules. If that isn't tricky enough, some states have laws differentiating "carrying" a firearm and "brandishing" (holding it pointed toward someone). I suspect we will be hearing more about this over the next week. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state#Iowa

No people shouldn't be allowed to bring a gun because agreeing with someone else's comment, it would only cause more problems than solutions, therefore it is unnecessary.

I don't think people should bring guns to the voting site because it may cause others not to come and may scare people. It would not be safe and there could be many things to go wrong.

I think bringing guns is super unnecessary to bring to a polling site, it could scare people away and possibly be the cause of an injury or death.

i think that unless you have your concealed carry licence, you should be able to bring it. yes, there is a chance of people being afraid, but there is nothing you can do about that. it isn't going to harm the election in any way and there are rules that have to be followed in order to be given the privilege of the license in the first place

why would you bring a gun, something for self-defense, killing, hurting... to voting sites? ummmmmmm

I simply do not see the point. I mean sure you can bring them if you are licensed but that doesn't mean I'm not going to judge you because clearly, the purpose is to make a statement, and not for self-defense. It's not like a grandma is going to point a gun at your head and make you vote Biden.

I personally think that you shouldn't be able to bring guns to voting sites. People are already intimidated going to these places to vote, and adding weapons would just cause more harm than good.

I personally don't believe there is any reason to bring a weapon to voting sites at all. There should be no weapons in a building during a government event.

If the gun holder has a licensed weapon and has years of experience with guns, then I think it wouldn't be a problem. A problem I noticed in the USA is everyone is very paranoid about guns, but not the person holding the gun. If the person has had little to no mental health issues and had years of experience with guns, then It shouldn't be a problem.

It doesn't make sense for people to be able to open carry firearms because votes could feel intimidated by the weapons into voting for a candidate they don't actually like.

i can't think of a reason of why people can bring guns into voting places. yes, they have a right to own one, but i don't think you need to carry a gun with you to vote

I think it's okay for someone with a license to carry to bring one in because that's the entire purpose of a license, but I think it should be kept to only small firearms in the event that someone were to attempt to attack a voting site.

I do not think people should bring guns to voting sites there is absolutely no reason. It only takes one person to get mad or get their feelings hurt and then start shooting then people are hurt or even dead. Especially when the world and the people are like the way they are right now.

I don't think that people should bring guns to voting sites because it would be easy for them to just decide to shoot it up if people don't agree with them.

I don't think it's a good idea to bring guns to voting sites because there is no point to. You wouldn't be in danger more than likely so there is no reason to take a gun with you to vote. And it may make other people uncomfortable and feel less safe while voting.

I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America

I believe that Donald Trump was the right choice for time magazine. Everyone has their point of view on him whether it is good or bad. I think that he will actually do good things for this country when he gets elected. He is on the cover of time magazine because they thought he had the greatest influence.

I feel like it was the right choice because in the very first paragraph time says "This is the 90th time we have named the person who had the greatest influence, for better or worse, on the events of the year." Not saying he has done amazing or horrible things he has had the greatest influence on people and I agree on that.

I agree with Landon, Donald Trump deserved to be named person of the year because set his plan to become president and "To Make America Great Again". His ideas may hurt our relationships with other countries, but he is focused to help our country first.

I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.

I would agree with Times choice to pick Trump because as it was stated at the very beginning of the article they named the person with the greatest influence.. For better or worse. Which I would agree with, whether or not you agree with Trump or you believe to deserves Presidency or not, he was one of the top influencers in 2016. You couldn't watch the news without hearing about him. He was very impactful in politics and news in the past year. So whether or not you support him he was one of the most influential people in the last year.

I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.

I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.

I have to say that I any happy that Trump did became President, he should the people to not think so lightly of him. He will do good for our country.

Everybody has their view on who he is and what he is going to do. Although I don't agree that he should be on TIME person of the year, because there are others who deserve it just as much as him.

I think him becoming "person of the year" is a little risky because Donald Trump really hasn't shown us, Americans, what his in capable of yet. Obviously he was capable of becoming president of the United States but what if were unsatisfied with his decisions in the upcoming year? Will Time Magazine regret making him person of the year?

Not surprised he won person of the year, I do think we had better options and many people would agree that other would deserve this more than trump.

I think he shouldn't have gotten "person of the year" because of what he said towards women and people of color. But other people may have think he deserved it. It's just a different opinion, but I wonder how this whole thing will turn out.

Just in general there are many apposing factors about Trump, good ones are him being president and is going to help out communities and so on. Bad ones are Trump ends up being racist and sexist.In my personal opinion, there are many more apposing factors of bad and he is just a terrible person. But many can argue.

Trump shouldn't have gotten person of the year. What he says about women and people of color and the way he treats them. That's not what the person of the year should be doing. Some people are for Trump and that's okay because that's their opinion. He'll be able to help out communities but many are against him for being racist and sexist. In my opinion he is a terrible person.

Trump is the first president without government or military background to go with them. It's a new feeling in the office that some agree with and some don't.

I think that whoever won the election would have won person of the year. Trump won the election and ended up winning the person of the year because he was influential, probably talked about the most and while he was supposed to fall out of the presidential race early on, he eventually won the presidency.

i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.

I feel like people are so focused on who he is as a person and now who he can become, we can't change the fact that he is president whoever we can accept it.

I really hope Donald can do good things for this country. I hope and wish that he will take back the bad and cruel things he has said about women, disabled people, people of color, etc,. I want him to keep his promises in making this country better. But I know he won't. I can't read his mind or read the future but from the looks of it, this can not turn out well. He should not have been chosen for people of the year. A great person, who is open-minded, strong and brave, accepting, a hero even, would make person of the year. But, instead, we all chose a sexist and racist man who has been elected for president. Cool.

I agree with their decision to make him the person of the year because he deserved it and people all over the country were influenced by him in either a good or a bad way.

I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year

I think that although many people think that it is not apt to be president but has many skills in the part of negotiating and thinking about whether it is a good investment or bad, it should give the opportunity to experience its way of working and if it gives the quality Appropriate to accept it because everything must be for the good of the country and of the people. And truly being president is very difficult and with a lot of organization and choose good decisions .

Although I don't agree with how Trump spends his existence in this world I do think that it is appropriate to name him person of the year. The article said that he wasn't necessarily given the title because he has done good. I think this is a good title for him because a lot of 2016 attention has fallen on him, he has impacted a majority of America and weather he makes people happy or unhappy they were still giving him a reaction, so yes I think it is appropriate to name Donald Trump person of the year.

I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).

Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.

I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.

I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.

As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?

I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.

The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.

I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.

I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.

Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.

I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.

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

I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.

I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty

We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.

I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.

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

In an ideal world, Biden wouldn't run so that a more popular progressive candidate could run. Unfortunately, Biden likely will run for re-election at the end of his term, or the DNC will push hard for another milquetoast centrist if he doesn't.

I agree with Brandon. I don't think Biden is the best president out there. From what I saw, many people only voted for him to get Trump out of office. However, from what I read in the article, Biden was confident when he said, "Yes. My plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation." As the current newly appointed president, it's good that Biden responded confidently even if he doesn't run again. He would have looked weak if he said anything else. Also, why are reporters asking this question so soon? Biden has only been in office for like three months. The press is just trying to hurry up life.

I don't think that he should run again, he should allow another to run who might be able to be more productive or something.

I don't think he will end up running again by the end of his term and I don't think he should either as he has labeled himself as a bridge president I think it's illogical to run again. him winning the presidency creates some momentum for the party and it's pretty obvious that from here some more democratic candidates will come forwards vying to be the top candidate, and I don't think Joe Biden coming to join them would be of any benefit and it would probably stand more as a division within the party. Joe Biden pretty much just stood as anti-Trump in this election for people so when people have the option to choose for another candidate I don't think many would choose Biden.

Depending on how his term ends out should be a deciding factor for reelection.

i think it's too early to think about reelection because even if he wants to run again, he might change his mind about it in a few years.

I believe we should wait to answer this question, cause we don't know what he's going to do in the future.

Biden has made some big mistakes, and has done things I don't approve of...But it's been less than a year, so I will give him a chance to correct his mistakes.

I agree with Jackie, it's too early in Biden's presidency to be asking whether or not he'll run again. I'm sure he'll try to run again, but I'm not sure how successful he'll be. Many people just voted for him because they didn't want Trump in office, so I'm doubtful they'll vote for him when there are other options.

it's too early in Biden's presidency to be asking whether or not he'll run again its been like 3 months that's a question that should be asked around the time of reelection.

I don't Biden should run again because they are better options out there for our president. Many people only voted for Biden because they didn't like how trump was as a person rather than what his policies did.

Personally, I think that Biden will run for president and I think that in 2024 he will lose. Do you think the rock can become president in 2024?

I agree with most of the comments. It´s too early to tell if Biden will run again especially since it's only been a few months. Depending on what he does in the office and the feedback he gets will dictate if he runs again. I do feel that Biden was sort of elected just to get Trump out of the office and I hope that in the next election there's a better option besides just the one main factor was he wasn´t Trump. Either way, I look forward to following the rocks campaign.

I think that a lot of people are happy t0 see this happen based on what he says about coronavirus. Personally, I do not think that it will make a difference in what he says about coronavirus. The reason that I believe this is because Trump is most likely going to survive coronavirus because he is getting the best medical care around. I think after that he will still talk about how it is still a hoax becuase he survived it.

I think that Trump didn't believe in COVID-19 until it actually happened to him and I hope that he will be more empathetic toward Americans going through this too. It did say he was symptomatic and that he is at high risk so there's a possibility that he might not make it.

I think now that Trump has COVID-19 his political campaign will be impacted. He will need to be in quarantine for at least 2 weeks and with so few days left until the election, his campaign will be at least a little bit impacted. Even though he has COVID-19 I don't think his outlook on it will change at all.

I hope now that Trump has COVID-19 he will be more willing to help other people with it and now be able to understand what others are going through.

I hope that Trump is more willing to help people and realizes that coronavirus is a serious thing, now that he has it.

I hope that Trump realizes that now that he has COVID-19 that it's a serious thing and helps other people with it.

Its funny this happened right after he was making fun of biden for wearing a mask

Hopefully, Trump is less insensitive to those who have COVID or have a family member who has had it and realizes how real and bad the virus can really be.

I think it's ironic how after he's been saying for months that masks don't work and that the pandemic is a hoax that he contracts COVID. But even though he does have corona, he still isn't taking it serious. He's taking off his mask two days after the diagnosis in front of a sea of reporters and I just think it's despicable.

I think that Trump with remain ignorant to the real effects of COVID and will continue to promote unhealthy recommendations to the public. I don't think having COVID will change him at all as he continues to display his normal narcissistic and dangerous behaviors that he always had

It sounds like he is starting to take precautions and is learning from previous choices he may have made.

I think that Trump is going to continue to take advice from the scientists but he is going to do what he feels is needed to "protect himself" from the Corona Virus. This doesn't mean he isn't going to not follow the ppe guidelines fro when in public.

This is important to ensure the right to vote is extended towards everyone,and it gets more people out there to vote. These are important thing when we pick a new leader to represent the country as a whole.

Most people don't think that voting is important but it is and it is good that the president signed an executive order to see if more people will vote

In my opinion, this new executive order is amazing. According to the article, "Every eligible voter should be able to vote and have that vote counted. If you have the best ideas, you have nothing to hide. Let the people vote."(konish) I totally agree with it because it's time for new beneficial changes and reformations.

One of the peoples greatest defenses against corruption in our government is our ability to vote.

Extension of the right to vote to everyone who possibly can is the most important thing in maintaining democracy so this is a very good thing

It's good that Biden has put in place this new executive order. It's important that everyone who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity too.

i agree that if we did not have our right to vote then we would lose our best defense against corruption.

I think giving more people the ability to vote is great. Hopefully this attempt to bring the voter count up works and more people can voice their opinion on who they think is the best fit for our country.

I think this is good because, everyone should have a right to vote, if we were not able to that would not give us a choice to anything.

Biden says that if we allow everyone to vote, it will repair and also strengthen the democracy party. I think it is a pretty good idea, it would mean everyone will have more benefitions.

This is a good thing because I think that having more people experiencing the "American" life will have good input on who to vote for.

This is a good thing for Biden because congress will restore the voting rights for Americans, and I think by doing that he will have more people experiencing life, and maybe the people will have good input on him so they will vote for him for the next presidential election again.

I think this executive order is amazing for our country. All people should have the right to vote, and this executive order is making it easier for them.

this is good because they can't pull any more tricks or try to get people not to vote anymore, which equals fair elections in the future.

it's important and good that biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think that Biden signing this bill helps ensure that Americans can exercise their right to vote and that it will help the voting count to increase.

It's really important that Biden signed this act because it makes sure everyone votes and the voting count raises.

I think it's good that Biden signed this bill because it will give more people the opportunity to vote.

I think this will be beneficial considering all the sneaky tactics that they've been using to get people not to vote, so this will help make voting fairer and give more opportunities to people.

I do believe that it does so happen to be a good thing that Mr. President Joe Biden has signed this act so that more people will have the chance to vote.

I think this is a good idea, we need more people voting if they can.

I like how voting is continuing to be a bigger issue people are bringing up because people living in America should get a say in who controls the government, regardless of who they are.

I think President Trump should wait for the next election to vote on a new Supreme Court Nominee, so the new president has a choice on who they would like.

I do not think that Donald Trump should be able to appoint a judge right now. The election is not even 3 months away, and Obama wasn't able to appoint a judge when he was in office and the election was not as close as it is now. I think it would be really unfair if they allowed him to do so. It is very important right now who gets into office and picks a new judge so I think that htye should wait.

I think there is a massive double standard here. This same argument was made with Obama when he was in office on an election year and he was blocked from a nomination and now Trump is being allowed to nominate a judge.The senate will push it through because it is republican dominated. It makes me sad to think that this is what our country has come to

The double standard here is obvious because the Senate is Republican-controlled they are going to go back on what they said during the last election just to appease Trump. It is not right and brings into question their credibility, how can we trust them to support us and do what they say they will do if they can't even follow their own rules?

I agree with the double standard thought. It is unfair to allow one president to nominate a judge while another has to wait. I believe that they should wait to bring in a new court justice.

I do not think Trump should´ve been able to appoint a new judge, I believe it should have been the next presidents responsibility.

I agree with Shana, I don't think trump should be able to pick someone, it should be up to the next president

I think that after the election this year, that person elected should appoint a new judge.

I think we should wait until the new president is elected to appoint a new judge so it's fair because that is what Obama had to do.

The 2016 election was 9 months after the death of a judge and Republicans made Obama wait. We're days before and they're telling Trump to nominate now. I think that's wrong and that they should wait until after the election.

I think we should wait to add a new person into the spot. Thats what RBG would have wanted and thats what had happened in the past.

I think it should be up to yourself to decide whether or not you want to wear a mask.

Though I respect the foundation and practice of religion I don't think that it should be used to put lives as risk by not wearing your mask in public and potentially exposing tons of people to the virus.

I think religion could be a factor, but they shouldn't use it when it comes to risking other people's health in public and exposing others and yourself; If they are going off of religion itself and not having anything to prove that masks are against their religion. It is important to be respectful and polite to others in public by wearing a mask.

i think everybody should wear mask.

I think that everyone should have to wear a mask not just to protect yourself but other people as well. Religion should not be a factor in wearing a mask and keeping people safe in the long run. Not wearing a mask is selfish and could harm other people when around other people it should be a polite common courtesy.

I think everyone should wear a mask. You could spread covid and harm others because of your decision not to wear one.

I think it should be up to you if you want to wear a mask or not.

Wearing a mask should be an option, no one is forced, but people should consider other's health.

I agree with oli; people should not be using religion as an excuse to not wear a mask unless they can prove their religion does not allow masks. That is disrespectful and selfish to use religion as an excuse if you cannot prove your religion does not allow it. Honestly, everybody should wear a mask it's not that hard, we're all going through the pandemic together just because you think it's too uncomfortable shows your unwillingness to consider others well beings.

Everyone should wear a mask, not only to protect themselves but others too. Not wearing a mask is incredibly selfish. Unless they can actually prove it is against their Religion to wear a mask, then they should be wearing one.

everybody should wear a mask. if you wear mask, it's law risk to get corona.

I think people shouldn't use religion to get out of wearing a mask. The mask itself is not to protect yourself, it's to protect the ones nearby. It's just common courtesy.

Protecting your religious rights is important but you have to be considerate of everyone else as well especially in a time of panic global issue.

I believe wearing masks should be one's choice if they want to or not because at the end of the day it's their body their choice and if you say people should have to wear one in the safety of others than many other laws should be revoked like the Rowe vs wade because abortion is killing another human being bc its an inconvenience to the mother so someone should not have to wear a mask because its an inconvenience to them

I think that If we all are required to wear masks, then even if you are religious, you should too. You shouldn't use your religious views as an excuse to not wear it. We are all required, so we all are going to. I understand where you should be able to choose on if you want to wear one or not, and I'm all for that, but until they say it's your choice, then you should be following the rules and wearing a mask, for the safety of the people that could get really sick from catching the virus.

I think religion should not be a reason to not wear a mask. How do religion and a mask relate?

I think the fact that masks are required for our health shouldn't be an issue with a religion they are both used for a different reasons which both are important.

I think it should be up to yourself to decide whether or not you want to wear a mask.

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

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

i think we should have the death penalty

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

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

What would happen if the person was innocent after all?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

better for the death penalty then life in prison.

Maybe we need to start corporal punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am prison

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that most of these students have as little or no knowledge of the flags origin and are just doing it to get attention and publicity.

I agree with zayne

I agree with zayne when he says they don't have that much knowledge about the flag because they said it wasn't about hate

I think they are trying to just get attention from the school and social media they don't really know what the flag means or stands for.

I think this whole situation is kind of blown out of proportion, Instead of expelling these students I think they should have dealt with the situation a little differently.

I don't believe that it would disrupt their school. I also don't believe that the reason that they are wearing, flying, or painting the flag is racist. Like in Hannah's case she is using the flag to support her brother who served. When it is wrongly used I believe it can be racist but in this case it's not.

I think that the school did the right thing banning the flag

This is a touchy subject, however, i think it's unjust that they were suspended for showing their opinion. I disagree with the symbolism of the confederate flag because it is a racist symbol that encourages a war to keep slavery. But the first amendment protects our opinions and the ability to share and express them in speech, clothing, or whatever else. So according to the first amendment they are allowed and cannot be punished for showing this flag no matter how much others disagree with the meaning and symbolism.

I agree with Zayne because they probably don't know much about it

In the article I wanted to hear an actual explanation of what the flag means to them if they are just ignoring the history and origin of the flag, but there was none. They just said, "Welp I say it's not racist so..." and that was it. If they want people to respect them and want to be able to wear the flag they have to at least try to explain or persuade people that it's not racist and causing a problem.

These people were not defending their right to free expression, as it was causing danger (the fights leading to the ban) so they shouldn't break the rules as they are constitutional. I agree w/ zayned

I think that if they want to wear this flag on their clothes or whatever that's fine but they should also respect their school rules.

i think anyone should be able to have the flag, wear the flag on clothing, etc, if its used for a good/right reason then i think it should not be banned.

I think this is ridiculous and they should be able to wear it or display it if they want to. They shouldn't be stopped from expressing themselves just because some people interpret it the wrong way. Being from deep Missouri I've seen plenty of them and heard a fair amount of reasoning from it (most of it coming from heritage) and whether I disagree with it or not, they should be able to do what they want with it.

They have the right to do wear what they want. school does not need to get involved with it. Its there right that is why we got the bill of rights so the GOVERNMENT or in this case the SCHOOL does not mess up with those peoples rights or anyone's right. The people who dont like it boo hoo they will have to deal with it. Its a right get over it period.

This whole incident has some students result to threats and other violent ways, I think the school had a right to ban the flag because the student's behavior got out of hand and it is a matter of others safety.

They shouldn't have banned their freedom of speech, because this sort of tells us that we don't have the right to have our own opinion.

I think that many of the students should know the real meaning but they do those things to attract the attention of others and that way they publicize what they do. But they can also be badly informed and that way they do it without any idea of what it is really.

I think that they had the right to have that flag on there shirts and cars because they are not using it for anything wrong, they are wearing it to show their family and to support people.

I do not agree with the school banning the flag.

I feel like if the kids have a legit reason to have the flag they should be able to have it. But if its just for hate they shouldn't.

Though it would be nice why they would explain why its racist, but they never did, but overall I believe these people are making this a bigger deal just for attention.

I think India should seriously considering going into a lock down, even for a few days or weeks. That way it can contain the spread of the virus outbreak. Last year, we learned about the dangers of not containing this virus. I also think the U.S. should join the UK in helping them. I know our country has it's own problems, but if we can -- even just a little bit -- we should help others in the world during these tough times.

i think that india should go into lockdown. cases are rising and if they don't quarantine, it will continue to rise

They should consider a lockdown. So many people are getting sick, it's the best way to go. If they don't, who knows what could happen?

they should definitely go on lockdown because it will just get worse and worse if they do not do anything right now when they should.

I strongly feel that India should go on a breathly lockdown. The virus could spread more than it already is. With caution and responsibility, I feel like the numbers would go down by a lot. Now that covid has been going on for more than a year, we should think and do more research of how we should help others.

I think for a country like India it's more complicated then just going into a lockdown. They have a population much higher than countries that have been able to successfully have lockdowns which makes it inherently much harder. On top of this India socioeconomic makeup make up is substantially poorer than countries that have had lockdowns as well. For a lot of India's population a lockdown just isn't viable, and you can see this in what happened in America as well where poorer people worked through lockdowns and because of this in poorer areas COVID spread easily. However this is a large portion of India's population, so this is an area where America needs to start exporting our extra vaccines since we have already had major success in our vaccine roll out and this is a grave situation

I think India needs to go on a heavy lockdown. It's important that they take a lot of precautions because the virus could spread more than it already is and prevent another world lockdown from happening and keep other people safe. It would also help their numbers go down and to keep the threat of it spreading contained.

India should go on lockdown right now when they can before it gets even worse for the people/

With the severity of COVID in India, I think they need to come up with a strategic plan to control the virus. Whether that means a heavy lockdown or something else it's important they do something now before it gets even worse. They are in a terrible place right now with the amount of COVID cases and I don't think anyone wants to know what it will be like if it continues to get any worse.

India definitely needs a lockdown right now. With COVID cases rising so drastically, this is the best possible thing for them to do to hopefully slow the spread of the virus.

Understandably the severity of COVID-19 is extremely high, but India is also a third world country that relies heavily on their work force to bring in any kind of revenue for their government. In a country like India the governments respect for the residents is slim so while they should go into lock down I don't believe they will.

They definitley need a lockdown as soon as possible. That could be a huge mess for India if covid isn't solved. I do think the US could provide aid I don't see why we couldn't?

They should go on lockdown, it'd benefit them so things don't get worse. They are suffering and need as much help as possible so we should help them.

I do believe they need to go into lockdown very soon so they can try to help keep themselves safe.

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.....

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

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

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

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

i think the white house will respond with a no

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Im angry about this be because it's already been moving to pass in Mississippi, Connecticut, and Tennessee. It's sad to see so many people retaliate against the trans-community. They see us as disgusting monsters. They don't feel bad when they take away the rights of trans youth because of their lack of understanding of what being transgender actually is. I'm not speaking for all trans people, but I would have rather never been born than to be trans. for many reasons because most are too personal to say. and when old 1900s people take away our basic rights, and others seem to never care, it angers me.

This is simply disgusting. Have people really become this ignorant and transphobic? Maybe they should... hear me out here... mind.their.business

I personally agree that transgender women should be banned from women sports because biologically they are still male and for all of human history males have been proven to physically superior to females and when you put a transgender women whos been a male for most of their life vs a women whos been a woman all of her life it's gonna be pretty obvious whos gonna win I would hate to be a girl in a wrestling team and get destroyed by a transgender women whos been a male for the longest time ever.

I disagree with the House of Republicans introducing anti-trans legislation that could lead to genital exams for females. America is a free nation where everyone has the right to choose and be identified based on their gender decision. As a female and one day future mother, I suggest not allowing this legislation because it will only spread narcissism and homophobia. Females should never be forced to go through an "examination" to prove their gender. The First Amendment guarantees our right to free expression and we should maintain it active no matter what.