Skip to main content

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

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

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

Petition for Texas to secede from US reaches threshold for White House response - U.S. News - 5 views

usnews.nbcnews.com/...shold-for-white-house-response

petition texas

shared by Bryan Pregon on 15 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • caseyyard on 15 Nov 12
     
    We should all know this is not going to happen. This is more of a state tantrum about wanting their state rights back. Personally I agree completely with the states that are doing this because the federal government is way past the boundary. The federal government is in place to protect us from others not are self's.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • patrick boian on 15 Nov 12
     
    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
  • joecarbis on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think this is just a way of Texans and those other states to show their frustration with the government
  • Jeremy Vogel on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • jacob whalen on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • jordan bywater on 15 Nov 12
     
    i think the white house will respond with a no
  • bvasquez13 on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 15 Nov 12
     
    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?
  • gharvey949 on 15 Nov 12
     
    I think that this will never happen. Although they might not believe that being apart of the U.S. benefits them, It truly does.
  • garrett lee on 15 Nov 12
     
    it would never happen but it will be interesting to see if any changes happen in response to this
  • jessicavaldez on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Melissa Christensen on 15 Nov 12
     
    I believe that Texas would do well in its own government, but it would be better to keep the 50 states.
  • aaron valdivia on 15 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Kirstina Michl on 16 Nov 12
     
    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.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 16 Nov 12
     
    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."
  • Payton Whiteaker on 16 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, what am I trying to state, is that states do have a right to secede, because we are not in a perpetual agreement to join the union. It was perpetual during the Articles of Confederation, the supreme court ruled that they have do not know if the constitution. "It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words." English: The Articles of Confederation declared it to be a perpetual union. The Articles of Confederation no longer exist. The supreme court literally state that they are going by ground of the Articles of Confederation, a.k.a. not a valid ground to take a stance upon. Now, if we look in history. plessy v. ferguson was a supreme court case that was overturned. This case can be overturned. Also, Jeremy, your understanding is correct on most of it. But from what the case as a whole states, under the Articles of Confederation, what you states is Valid. The Court ruled this with the usage of the Articles of Confederation. (Personally, do not think you should be able to do that, and that the courts ruling is a mistake.) Finally, I am simply stating the states have a right to secede if they want to, this is because the constitution, and not the Articles of confederation, is vague about the idea of secession, applying the 10th amendment, the states should have a right to secede if they have a majority of people, unless we plan to be a hypocritical society that has already forced others to use the policy in which most people want to deny.
  • Sidnie Lewis on 19 Nov 12
     
    I think this in an interesting topic. The idea of states attempting to secede from the union is mind blowing. We know our government is faulty and far from flawless... but in comparison to others, we find it to be the strongest. We defend such a government, yet there are states that want to withdraw from it! I would actually like to look into this topic a little more, so I can understand all factors in the state's decisions!
Bryan Pregon

The Morning: 'Covid zero' isn't happening - 25 views

messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/...oakv2

shared by Bryan Pregon on 24 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • sydneykolln on 01 Mar 21
     
    This article really opened my eyes to see how the flu compares to the Coronavirus. Even with the vaccines rolling out, Covid cases will still happen even if they are decreasing. It will take numerous years to get back to "normal" and hopefully, this pandemic opened our eyes to realize just how serious these diseases and viruses can be.
  • ...18 more comments...
  • zeaksorensen on 01 Mar 21
     
    i have thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear. but it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines and people becoming immune.
  • zoedeveney on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think this article kinda showed me a perspective that I didn't really think about. I kinda just blew off everyone saying it was gonna go away because obviously, that's just people being optimistic. But reading about the number of serious cases covid/flu wise made me realize that it is managable.
  • carsonschaa on 01 Mar 21
     
    I thought from the beginning that covid will not disappear and life wouldn't be life anymore, but I wasn't going to think about bad so I thought to myself, it will get better like the flu, thanks to vaccines older people have a better chance of becoming immune.
  • vperez191 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I did not expect that the covid deaths were going to be that high than the flu deaths until I saw the graph that the article has. I'm glad that the covid vaccine is out so it can help sick people.
  • lamador794 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I also believed that it was going to be very hard to get rid of or at least control covid but now I realize how our Nation has used all types of advanced technology and knowledge to stop it. Ieven see how we have achieved such as great overcome, the cure.
  • hannahliwai on 01 Mar 21
     
    "For fully vaccinated people, serious illness from Covid is extremely rare, much rarer than serious illness from the seasonal flu." i think this is great! seems like the vaccine is working! I have a question though... any update on the age limit for vaccines? i know when they first started, it was 16+ and then it was 18+... in china, they were vaccinating children as young as two.
  • bklopp601 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I believe that covid cases will happen even when they are decreasing. I looked at the chart and was surprised at the difference between covid and all of the other diseases.
  • jdogan on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think the thought that Covid is just going to disappear with the preventative measures has mostly just been a necessary lie or at least has intentionally not fully been explained just for the consequences of people seeing it as never going away. People already don't want to follow guidelines, but if it's never going to go away I think that would embolden a lot of people to completely disregard guidelines unrightfully.
  • aburianek421 on 01 Mar 21
     
    I think that if we had acted faster and with more intention at the beginning of the outbreak, we could've been back to normal already. Australia had some of the harshest quarantine restrictions before things really got bad and they're essentially back to normal already. As long as we don't get overconfident maybe we can avoid extending this quarantine longer that it needs to be... again.
  • ericschmidtberge on 01 Mar 21
     
    In the first few weeks, I did think covid would just blow over but after a year of living with it clearly didn't. I think that as time passes hopefully in the next year or two the vaccines will help create immunity and keep people safe and eventually we can return to a somewhat normal life. I've heard the analogy of covid being like how airport security came to be. A sad tragedy occurred but because of that event, we learned to put precautions in place to prevent it from happing. I feel like once covid gets under control we will be better equipped to not only survive another virus if that is the case but we are also better equipped to prevent the sickness and death from existing ones as well.
  • tsilva588 on 02 Mar 21
     
    We're still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around but the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people. So I think that within the next year these cases will go down.
  • milo_nordman on 05 Mar 21
     
    This article was definitely an interesting read. I think that even with the vaccine being given out it will take time to get back to normal, especially when people are still disregarding safety guidelines.
  • carsonschaa on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree with tsilva588 because we are still gonna be dealing with losses while covid is around. But the whole world hopes that the vaccine can hopefully start to clear this up for people because I think within the next year these cases are going to go down.
  • thomaschau on 08 Mar 21
     
    With the Covid vaccine rolling out, I think the number of fatalities from Covid will go down, But I think the number of people getting infected won't be going down by a large percentage since people don't trust the covid vaccine and people even then don't want to wear a mask. I think life won't be normal for the next 2-3 years.
  • arosas733 on 08 Mar 21
     
    This article was interesting to read and very true, it won't go away completely but hopefully, soon we will be going back to normalcy. We have been learning to live with it and just like any virus, it is going to die out but we should always be cautious no matter what. Keep clean and take care of ourselves, as it overall doesn't have as much of an effect on healthier people.
  • bflores247 on 08 Mar 21
     
    I agree, while yes it may still go down, this pandemic reminds us how bad things can get, we are lucky to brush with a not so deadly disease, yes people still die from it, but the mortality rate is exceedingly high, thanks to huge advancements in medical research and development, and, on the optimistic side of things, many good ideas and products came out of this, restaurants being able to deliver, seeing loved ones on a screen to be able to connect with them more easily, and widespread connectivity with everyone.
  • mcaamal on 08 Mar 21
     
    this was interesting because the situation was put into perspective. They say that is should be kinda normal around the summer and that is such a good new because that means senior year will be more normal. I was kinda hesitant about the vaccine but apparently it is really helping even though there are some people who still do get sick is has come down to less people.
  • jtaulborg103 on 15 Mar 21
     
    I thought this article was interesting because it helped me gain a better perspective of COVID-19. Even with vaccines coming out, the world will not be put back on its axis because of all the damage that´s been done. It will take a while for things to return normally. Even with the decreasing number of cases, there will still be people who get it. It will still spread around like any other virus. I knew it was obviously a bad problem but it really put it into perspective for me.
  • rosellyrosas on 15 Mar 21
     
    This article was very eye-opening. A lot of people think that the coronavirus will soon end, according to the article, it says that the coronavirus will be not be extinguished anytime soon. The University of Johns Hopkins says that people thinking the virus will end sounds like a fantasy and not a reality. The virus caused a lot of people harm and sadness. Many things were ruined by the virus and have opened a lot of people eye's to appreciate and value what they have. Having the vaccine it'll help us make the virus manageable, just like the flu.
  • gbrochu915 on 22 Mar 21
     
    I liked this article because it gave me a better view on how corona is and how long it will take for people and us to get back to our "old world" and how it compares to other viruses.
Jeremy Vogel

Tennessee Teacher Pushed Out For Supporting Free Speech Of Gay And Atheist Students - 1 views

thinkprogress.org/...ch-of-gay-and-atheist-students

shared by Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Jeremy Vogel on 11 Sep 12
     
    In May, the Lenoir City High School faculty was threatened with a criminal investigation for publishing a yearbook story titled, "It's OK To Be Gay."
  • ...8 more comments...
  • Holly Jensen on 11 Sep 12
     
    This is ridiculous. It's so disrespectful not only to the students but to any community that's suffered discrimination. Who's to say they won't start being sexist or discriminate against African Americans?
  • Alex Snipes on 11 Sep 12
     
    I don't think it is necessary to put something in a school yearbook about being gay, because there is nothing about being straight. Yes, people may think being gay is OK, but there is no reason for that to be in a high school yearbook, that has nothing to do with the school. If no one is allowed to talk about their religion or God in school, then we also shouldn't be able to talk about being gay. I've never seen a section in a yearbook titled "Its OK to be Christian." Yes, people should be allowed to be gay, but it doesn't need to be flaunted like that.
  • Bryan Pregon on 11 Sep 12
     
    I had read about this story before, and as a teacher I am impressed that Mr. Yoakley had the courage to let his students have a voice. Putting myself in his position, would make for a hard decision when faced with losing a job you love but I hope I would do the same.
  • Holly Jensen on 13 Sep 12
     
    I understand them not having to have something in the book but maybe it was for their LGBT Club and they wanted to do a story on it just like they would for some other club or student council. I don't think it was right for them to fire the teacher for it. And you can talk about religion in school you just can't try and force or push it on others. I know that here were have a club for christian athletes and they even pray under the flag in front of school.
  • Mallory Huggins on 14 Sep 12
     
    In Iowa, at least, I know that it's illegal for a school to bar a student run publication from publishing a piece. Yes, there aren't sections in yearbooks with titles like "it's OK to be Christian," but I think that's because no needs to be told that. Homosexuality is currently a big political issue. I think that if Christianity were currently an issue as large as homosexuality students would be writing about it. Besides, saying we shouldn't talk about political issues, or that gays shouldn't be allowed to "flaunt" their sexuality is, in my opinion, simply another way of condoning persecution of them.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 14 Sep 12
     
    The fact as to how they treated this teacher is outrageous. He is allowing students to express themselves, and the school is completely violating the first amendment. A student explaining there beliefs is allowable, and in no way breaking a law. Considering this is a student written newspaper, you cannot bar that students article simply because it talks about religion. They would be oppressing atheists, and showing support to those with religion, the school should not be able to bar an article like that. This is no different from a student expressing there sexuality. If you truly have a massive problem with it, think of it in the following hypothetical way: An article is written in the school newspaper about the upcoming homecoming dance. There is a little bit of advice for girls saying they should make there man pay for them. This is supporting heterosexuality, and is in no different from an article supporting homosexuality. Either the above hypothetical in the newspaper should be say, man (Or women depending on your interests,) or it should be removed if you cannot place an article about being gay in a newspaper.
  • Kirstina Michl on 14 Sep 12
     
    As a Yearbook student myself, I would honestly be a little surprised if someone brought up the idea to place a story about homosexuality or atheism in the yearbook, but only because the Yearbook tells stories about the entire school year, and doesn't really talk about the opinions of the writers. I personally think that it would make more sense to place it in the opinion section of the school's newspaper. However, if they want to place the story in the yearbook, then they need to be allowed to place it wherever they please. Like most people pointed out, it's violating the first amendment.
  • Michaela Koopmeiners on 14 Sep 12
     
    It's okay for him to stick up for people that are gay or being atheist, but that shouldn't be published in a yearbook, which has nothing to do with school.
  • Alexis Theos on 20 Sep 12
     
    ^ Michaela it has to do with gay bullying, i believe it is relevant.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 21 Sep 12
     
    Michaela, homosexuality is a part of almost every high school. GSA, (gay straight alliance) a club at our school. That alone means it has to do with school. A yearbook article on that would be just as relevant on a article about chess club, or mock trial, or a sport. If you honestly, and truly disagree with me, then how is it not as important as any of those things?
Bryan Pregon

Your Right to Own, Under Threat | Electronic Frontier Foundation - 1 views

www.eff.org/...your-right-own-under-threat

shared by Bryan Pregon on 29 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 29 Oct 12
     
    The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments today in a case called Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, and their final decision could help shape the future of "first sale," a legal doctrine that underpins the right to sell, lend, or give away the things you buy, even if those things contain copyrighted elements.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 29 Oct 12
     
    I actually read another article about this somewhere (wish I had saved it now.) In the article I read a law professor or a lawyer or someone like that said that it isn't things manufactured overseas but things originally bought overseas. The example used in the article I read was if you bought an iPod in China because it was cheaper then tried to sell it here for a profit then the "first sale" doctrine doesn't protect you. However, if you buy the iPod here in the United States, even if it was made in China, then you'd be protected. Not sure how accurate/unbiased the article I read was as I don't remember who it was by but I do think that this article sounds a little biased and like they are trying to push two sperate issues together ("first sale" and the controversial digital licences issue). Just my take though.
Payton Whiteaker

Arizona Anti-Troll Law - 5 views

dailycaller.com/...trolled-for-anti-trolling-bill

Government Anti-Troll Law Arizona

shared by Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    This is possibly one of the funniest laws I have ever seen. Man I am glad I do not live in Arizona, internet trolling is fun, as long as you are not mean about. I really want to see what others think about this.
  • ...15 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 01 Sep 12
     
    "It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person." This is some of the language of the out of the bill (I found it in another article on Forbes). It seems reasonable, at least this section as I haven't read the whole law, except for the parts that say, "annoy or offend" and "use any obscene, lewd, or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act". We have laws that say you cant threaten, intimidate, threaten, or harass people in person or to threaten to inflict harm on another or their property so it makes to do the same thing over the internet. The fact that they added the annoy or offend and other parts I mentioned is a little ridiculous because just stating your opinion, and what you believe, on Facebook or in a comment section on a news article could "offend" someone. There is a big difference between being offensive, which is and should be legal, and trying to threaten, harass,terrify, and intimidate someone.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 04 Sep 12
     
    I can see why they want to remove the whole terrify, intimidate, and threaten part, but in all reality, the rest of the law is what is accountable to what most consider, "trolling." I personally don't get why annoying people would be against the law, it's human nature, and you cannot change that. And offending someone online means you do so verbally, and have a separate opinion from the person you are offending.You would be violating freedom of speech if you put that last bit in.
  • Alex beck on 04 Sep 12
     
    the expressed opinion that annoying someone else is human nature makes me question if you truly understand human nature. However, you are also incorrect about your freedom of speech theory. The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters. Do you honestly believe that it is your free right to harass a person, or to intentionally offending someone, which can logically be derived as a branch of harassment? I don't mean to sound rude or agressive, but I really don't see that falling under a freedom of speech infraction
  • Rainie mccubbin on 04 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Alex plus it says the intent to do those things... If you're stating your opinion you aren't really intentionally setting out to annoy or offend anyone. You are just stating what you think
  • Jeremy Vogel on 04 Sep 12
     
    I have to disagree that intentionally offending a person is a form of harassment. Casually stating god isn't real to a person you know to be a devote Christian could potentially be offensive but it isn't harassment. On another note being intentionally offensive has been upheld by the Supreme Court, in the case of R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, as being in the parameters of protected speech. However, in Virginia v. Black the Court said that being offensive as to intimidate a person or group is not protected speech. Some comedians are intentionally offensive to specific groups but because they aren't being offensive as to intimidate, harass, terrify, or threaten others their offensive speech is protected.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    an interesting point, Jeremy. However, if I may ask, would hunting down a specific group on the internet in order to state a belief against theirs for the sole purpose of antagonizing that group not be harassment? I cannot argue against the logic presented in those cases that intentionally being offensive would be protected... however, entering a church in order to proclaim that there is no god (as an example) would be the equivalent of hunting a group down and posting that on their forums. I know that isn't the only reason that a post would show up like that, but it seems the most likely to me. I do enjoy a good, offensive comedian, but if he were to come to me specifically because he wanted to tell me how my beleifs were incorrect, I think that would fall under religeous harassment, (spelling?) just like a religeous person can be charged for harassment for hunting down a person with opposing beleifs and proclaiming their message, shouldn't people trying to tell them that their beleifs are incorrect be treated in kind?
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Sep 12
     
    Great discussion... another issue to consider is whether or not the listeners are "captive audience" or not. Freedom of speech is an incredibly complex topic (which we will discuss more soon in class) There is a big difference between an offensive comedian that I choose to go watch at a club and the same comedian that shows up on my doorstep to deliver an offensive message... if the second scenario continued it would seem to rise to the level of harassment pretty fast. The bigger question in my mind is do we want to prevent "offensive speech" at all or would that be a slippery slope to taking away more of our right to expression?
  • Kirstina Michl on 05 Sep 12
     
    I don't think that being annoying or offensive (so long as it's not harassment) should be illegal. It's kind of like cussing - it's frowned upon, but shouldn't necessarily be illegal (unless used in an act of violence or threatening someone).
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you stated earlier that, "The law states that it is illegal to post something with "the intent to terrify, intimidate, threatend, harass, annoy or offend" which clearly removes it from freedom of speech parameters." That is false, and why the law has not been passed as of now, and unlikely to be passed ever. Not to mention that it is to unclear upon its wording to be held up in court. I also do know that this law clearly states, "annoy." I annoy people, I do it daily, should I be jailed for 25 years for it? (The maximum time period in which this law can jail a person for). Also, I can go into a church and say, "God is not real." What exactly can you legally do against me? Can you jail me for going in there and stating my beliefs? At the most, you can make me leave by request or have me jailed for trespassing. That's like being jailed for saying, "I hate the U.S. government," which I have a clear right to say as in our first amendment. As for the idea of "Religious Harassment," one can have there beliefs. If I go to a church, and decide to start screaming on the top of my lungs, "God is not real!" I am stating my beliefs were I please, which is protected under the first amendment. A Christen probably would not like it, but if one comes up to me and says God is real, there is not much either on can do to convince the other the other that they are wrong, and both are entitled to there own opinion. This law would jail someone for stating there religious beliefs, which is not legal by our constitution. Would that not be "Religious Harassment?"
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    Payton, you state that my reference to the law is false, however I took that as a direct quote from Jeremy. Perhaps you should do a little reading? as for what I can legally do, I can report you for religious harassment and get you a ticket. By there you mean to post "thier", just so you know. Simple mistake. Anyways, specifically looking for someone to aggrivate by stating thier beliefs are no longer just looking to state their beliefs. I am not arguing against one's ability to annoy, by the way. I do tend to do this on a regular basis. I am stating that it is harassment to seek out persons that I know will be offended by my remarks and verbally assault them, and they may do as they please with this assault. I do appreciate your use of 'reductum ad absurdum' or the reduction of an opposing argument to its most rediculous or nonsensical interpretation. However, I am not suggesting jail time.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 05 Sep 12
     
    Alex, you do realize the law itself suggests a minimum sentence of 6 months, to the max of 25 years in prison for one simply stating something as simple as beliefs on the internet. As well as that 2nd hand reference, that I assume you simply went off the word of another with, is still false, the bill did not pass because it broke the first amendment. As for that ticket, I would be ticketed for expressing myself about my religion, and in no way did I say anything bad about another religion, that would be freedom of speech before religious harassment.
  • Alex beck on 05 Sep 12
     
    That ticket would be for harassing a group of people for their beliefs, and you know it. If I were to hunt you down and assault your every belief, whether it be right or wrong, and do it, not just for no reason, but simply because I want to cause anger and controversy? That goes against everything our country stands for. We have certain inalienable rights, including the pursuit of happiness, and dealing with someone who just wants to make you angry directly interferes with that.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 06 Sep 12
     
    I'll first start off by saying that in my last post I misspoke when I said that I didn't believe that being intentionally offensive is harassment. I should have said that it isn't necessarily harassment. Payton the law did pass the Arizona Legislator and it reached the Governor's desk, that is why people were worried about First Amendment Violations. The Legislator then pulled it back before Governor Brewer signed it into law, stating that they may rework the wording of the Bill to narrow the broad language in hopes to remove parts that could potentially violate Free Speech. The revised bill has since been signed into law. This is the first form of the Bill passed by the Legislator but was brought back to be reworked: http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/AZ-HB-2549s-as-passed-by-legislature.pdf This is the reworked Bill as to narrow it's scope which became law: http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/HB2549-as-amended-most-recent-04_2012-full-bill.pdf Alex and Mr. Pregon do make a good point about seeking out specific groups. I think after looking into it a little more Mr. Pregon is right about Freedom of Speech being a complex topic. Looking at the two court cases I mentioned and then two others I ran into while looking things up seem to contradict each other in someways yet support each other at the same time. Snyder v. Phelps and the parts of the majority ruling that were in an article I read, actually found the full ruling and opinions and plan on reading them, make it seem like, to me at least, it is in fact okay to seek out a group and say things that are unpopular, potentially offensive, and controversial as long as you aren't trying to intimidate, threaten, etc. that group as V
  • Payton Whiteaker on 06 Sep 12
     
    Alex, there is a difference between stating a belief, such as not believing in god, and discrediting a religion based on that belief. That would be an odd situation, but as long as one does not go into detail as to how a religion is superior/inferior to another, it should not be considered offensive. Jeremy, this article was written previously to the revised bill, due to it being highly ambiguous. I also agree as to the newly revised bill. The bill previously was going strictly reduce freedom of speech, which will no longer be that well restricted, although I doubt it will be easy to enforce.
  • Eric Cavanaugh on 06 Sep 12
     
    Of course you would put this up Payton....
  • Jazmine Orellana on 07 Sep 12
     
    I don't see why they have to ban it. I mean this happens in every state. Some states have it worse then AZ. I think we need to take care of physical problems before we get to the internet.
  • Payton Whiteaker on 11 Sep 12
     
    Well said Jazmine.
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

Juvenile Justice: Too young for Life in Prison? - 10 views

abcnews.go.com/...story

Politics News Juvenile Prison

shared by Melissa Diaz-Aguilera on 29 Nov 12 - No Cached
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    I feel like you should be able to charge juveniles as adults. I think it would be absurd to just let kids away with committing crimes, especially the one this kid did. If an adult did something like this no one would even think twice about arresting them, why is it different in this case? I think that he needs to be put behind bars and he needs some sort of counseling because obviously something is not right with him. It might also help to know what kind of background the kid has, to see why he did it. There has to be a reason.
  • ...27 more comments...
  • Jeremy Vogel on 30 Nov 12
     
    If we as a society won't allow juveniles, sixteen year olds in particular, to vote or to sign their name to a legal contract and the justification for that restriction is because they aren't "mature enough" or that they "don't/won't understand" the lasting consequences then how can we expect them to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime? If sixteen year olds are old enough and mature enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime then shouldn't they also understand the lasting consequences to the things I mentioned above?
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with Jermey, we need to not set a double standard. We need to rehabilitate young offenders, because if you are not a hard criminal before you go to prison for 20 years of one of the most impressionable times of your life, you will come out of it as one. These are kids that probably grew up in broken homes, and this was the only path they were going to take, because it was the only one they saw. So lets rehabilitate, and give them productive lives, not ones that are going to keep the cycle going.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    I agree with you for the most part Natalie. Although if it's a really small crime and the juvenile is unarmed, then they should go to juvenile court. But for crimes bigger than that example, they need to be charged as an adult would be charged. There's actually this reality TV show (that I can't remember the name of) where, in each episode, a group of kids who are on the streets and in gangs, etc. are taken into a jail as a form of rehabilitation, and they go through a day of being in jail and they also hear stories from people who are in jail at that time, and they always say that one doesn't want to end up in jail. I think there was one particular episode where a girl went with her mother to watch her mother plan a funeral for her. It's pretty interesting, and it does seem to help a lot.
  • Natalie Wilson on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jared, I understand what you mean by some kids growing up in broken homes and having bad lives growing up BUT you always have the option to not go down that road. You have the option to try to better yourself and make something of yourself. Although most people don't do that, they don't always pull a gun on a cop. That is a serious offense and I feel like you guys are so focused on the fact that he's our age that you're blinded by what he did. Jeremy, I don't understand what you're saying. I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me so if you could maybe clarify that would be great. Thanks. Kirstina, I do get what you're saying. Most kids need to see what can happen but this kid is plenty old enough to know right from wrong.
  • Jared Holcomb on 30 Nov 12
     
    I realize that, but the people that are the most likely to pull a gun are the ones that have the most messed up life beforehand in most cases. We should try them as children, and try to rehabilitate them. Before your 18, and move, a large part of what you do, and know is influenced by your parents, and other senor figures in your life, and even friends Until you reach adulthood, its hard to be your own person, especially in the environment that generates this type of person. There is the odd person in there that is just a bad person, and it is all there fault, but we need to try to rehabilitate them as a child, not as an adult.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Nov 12
     
    Jeremy, there's a major difference between crime and legal contracts. They don't have anything to do with each other. Sentencing teens like adults is important because it protects us. It's a safety issue. Plus it tells other kids, "You break the law, you get in huge trouble." And they don't allow people under 18 to sign contracts without parental consent to protect them from making stupid decisions.
  • Jeremy Vogel on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie I'm sorry for the confusion. I was replying more to the article then directly to your post. To clarify I disagree with your position about putting juveniles into adult court that commit violent crimes. At least with the current system we have in place. Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting. As long as our society wants to say that sixteen and seventeen year olds aren't mature enough to understand the consequences of something like voting then how can we expect them to understand these violent crimes that they commit. I'm all for placing older teens in adult court when they commit an adult crime but only if they aren't subjected to an unfounded and unreasonable double standard. Either sixteen year olds are on the same maturity level as adults or they aren't.
  • jacob whalen on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think it is totally understandable because it shows that this kid is planning on doing crimes in the future.
  • garrett lee on 03 Dec 12
     
    i think that they did the right thing by arresting him if you are 16 then you are old enough to realize that shooting a cop isn't a good idea and you will have a punishment for it
  • jessicavaldez on 03 Dec 12
     
    Natalie i agree with your point of view on this article. If he is 16 he already knows what he is doing. We are all in high school and know well the consequences if we did that. I also agree with what you said about his background. It seems like this is a record and he already knows the consequences. So in my opinion he should be charged for adult crime.
  • KImberlee Keller on 03 Dec 12
     
    I believe this kid should get charged as an adult because like they said in the article. He is a threat to society and to himself.
  • mandyvorthmann on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Natalie, everyone in the right mind should know shooting at someone; especially a police officer is wrong. And know their will be consequences to follow. So yes, juveniles should be charged as an adult depending on the circumstances.
  • Melissa Christensen on 03 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging juveniles as adults. People should know the right from wrongs at an early age and receive the consequences though an understanding of what they did wrong.
  • joecarbis on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with Melissa, people should know the difference from right and wrong, they definitely know the incentives for doing wrong as well.
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    Jeremy, I don't quite understand where you stand on the issue. You said that you realize there's a difference but then you said, and I quote, "Kirstina I know there is a major difference between committing a violent crime and signing legal contracts/voting. That's my entire point. If a sixteen year old is not mentally mature or responsible enough to understand the long term consequences of voting then they most definitely aren't mature or responsible enough to understand the lasting consequences of committing a violent crime like shooting at a police officer, an act that take far more mental maturity to fully understand when compared to voting." You're contradicting yourself there and in your original comment.
  • Hayley Hochstetler on 04 Dec 12
     
    Obviously there is something wrong with society if we have mere teenagers pulling out weapons and assaulting people to the point of felony. I think that the punishment is completely fair for such a sick individual. Criminal behaviors are not taught, but learned so he had to have learned this from someone he knew or a parent with a criminal record. Either way, what he did was wrong and he deserves to be behind bars.
  • gabby valdez on 04 Dec 12
     
    I agree with charging minors as adults because this article is one of many where the felon was a minor. I did research over this in another class and i found many articles where they were charging a minor with adult charges because of how brutal the murders they committed where. Like i argued in my other paper "is your loved one's life any less valuable just because they got murdered by a minor"
  • Natalie Wilson on 04 Dec 12
     
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/03/sport/football/dutch-linesman-killed-football/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 Here's another case of teenagers committing violent crimes. They beat this man to death. There were two 15 year-olds and a 16 year-old.
  • bvasquez13 on 04 Dec 12
     
    they should charge minors as adults because they will be out in the streets again and doing more crimies. its there own fault that they get charged thats why they should face charges alone.
  • gharvey949 on 04 Dec 12
     
    I think if you do the crime, you pay the time whenever the government wants you to.
  • jordan bywater on 04 Dec 12
     
    i say same charge for everyone no matter what
  • Emili Davis on 04 Dec 12
     
    if you're willing to make the decision to break the law and commit a serious crime with the consequences of an adult then you should definitely suffer the same consequences no matter your age.
  • Lydia Navarrette on 04 Dec 12
     
    if anyone commits a crime they should be charged the same no matter what age
  • Sidnie Lewis on 05 Dec 12
     
    I agree with the idea that no matter your age, if you commit a serious crime, you should suffer the consequences. Say a teenager decides to murder someone... Just because they're a minor, should they be charged with a lesser offense than an adult would have? NO. If you are willing, capable, and have the mental capacity and audacity to commit such crimes, you deserve prison and whatever other punishment you receive.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 12
     
    Great discussion guys! Here is some more food for thought. People who do bad things need punishment, but there is plenty of scientific evidence that teenage brains are in a state of development that doesn't excuse bad acts, but can help explain it. http://goo.gl/MXEAd Ask yourself if you are the "same person" you were when you were 5 years old? I can tell you, you will make decisions differently when you are 25, and probably 65.
  • Jared Holcomb on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is a good point i have to say. That's why I think we need to do our best to reform kids, not just punish them. Make it clear that their will be consequences, but try them as hardened, adult criminals is not the way to do it.
  • blakewilladsen on 05 Dec 12
     
    This is an extremely touchy subject. It's hard to lay out things like this without stepping on toes of other controversial subjects like voting age and military eligability
  • KImberlee Keller on 05 Dec 12
     
    You both make a good point, but when a kid gets charged with a felony, he obviously has done wrong. Sometimes you do bad things, but its not as bad compared to other things. Though when you get older, you can continue to do bad things, and the bad things can turn into crimes, etc. Sometimes charging teens as adults is the way to go, even if it doesn't seem fare. Maybe not fore life, but two years, or even one, wont do any harm.
  • Hyejin Park on 14 Dec 12
     
    I think if someone did crime, they should be punished no matter their age. so make them realize how bad it is.
mcaamal

Second Dose of COVID-19 Vaccine Has Stronger Side Effects - 22 views

www.healthline.com/...ely-have-stronger-side-effects

shared by mcaamal on 22 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • jackiegonzalez on 22 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, all of us should consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • ...24 more comments...
  • kredding147 on 22 Mar 21
     
    The second dose really does have stronger side effects. My mom got her vaccine because she works with law enforcement and she was sick for a few days after she got hers and she said when she woke up the morning after her shot that it felt like someone hit her in the arm with a baseball bat.
  • hannahliwai on 22 Mar 21
     
    yes, the second dose does have side effects, but the same thing happens with the flu vaccine. the only difference is that this vaccine doesn't actually inject you with the virus. it just sends antibodies to teach your body to fight it.
  • rosellyrosas on 23 Mar 21
     
    This article talks more in-depth about what coronavirus vaccines do to your body. For example, it talks about how the first vaccine teaches your body how to react to the virus. With the second vaccine, you will more than likely be getting more side effects. According to the article, no matter how many side effects people will get, the vaccine will still be working in your body. What are your guy's thoughts about the vaccine?
  • carsonschaa on 23 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, we should all consider taking it. At this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • milo_nordman on 25 Mar 21
     
    I think that even though it has stronger side effects people should still consider getting the vaccine. The stronger side effects may be rough, but I'm sure getting Covid is worse.
  • sydneykolln on 26 Mar 21
     
    The article discusses how the second Covid shot will most likely hit harder than the first. It talks about how that's actually a good thing because these common symptoms are typically signs that the vaccine is working. While I have had friends that have suffered from the second shot, I would still get the shot because it's better than getting Covid.
  • masonmascarenas on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that because the side effects are stronger we should allow the vaccine more time for development, but we should still consider getting it.
  • carsonschaa on 29 Mar 21
     
    Even though the second dose of the COVID-19 had stronger effects, I think all of us should consider taking it at this point, it's our only hope to end the pandemic.
  • gbrochu915 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I think that even with the second shot having more side effects we should still get it because it is our only option at this point but I do also think that there needed to be more time for the vaccine to develop and for us to know if it could really effect us in the future.
  • bflores247 on 29 Mar 21
     
    I completely trust the Maderna vaccine as my dad was part of the trial for it and he had no problems with it (he didn't have the placebo, he had the actual vaccine), and that's good enough for me, if he was fine, ill most likely be fine.
  • abbidominguez on 13 Apr 21
     
    I think although the second dose has stronger side effects it shouldn't stop you from not getting the vaccine at all. I think the vaccine is our only chance of getting rid of COVID and it will only work if the majority of Americans get it. At the end of the day, I think the side effects of the vaccine can't be as bad as the long-lasting effects COVID can have on you.
  • vperez191 on 13 Apr 21
     
    The COVID shot reminds me of the flu shot because when you get the flu shot it is normal to get sick afterwards or have pain but it will prevent you later from getting the flu. Even though the covid shot has side effects it is still good to get it because it will prevent you from getting COVID
  • ericschmidtberge on 14 Apr 21
     
    Even though the second dose has strong side effects I think that it's vital that everyone gets vaccinated if we ever want to return to normal life. I got my first dose last week and besides a sore arm and being a little thirsty I was fine. It affects people in different ways so I could get no side effects when I get my second dose or I could get a ton of negative ones. It's only for 48 hours according to the article and I´m willing to endure the risk of being sick if it means making the world hopefully safe and normal again.
  • arosas733 on 14 Apr 21
     
    I think its really your choice. I personally believe I do not need to be getting a newly made vaccine that no one knows the possible future effects from it. If I get Covid I get it and I feel it's more important for older people to get the vaccine if they like, you do you. But as well as the J & J vaccine, I feel it is unneeded things being put into your body where there has already been multiple of horrible results from people getting the vaccine. You won't be seeing me vaccinated.
  • lhunter952 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Personally, I would not get the vaccine because nobody knows what it is going to do to you later. If there are no long-term effects and it truly does protect you from the virus then I completely understand why you would get it. The thing is, no one 100% knows so I would be very hesitant to get it.
  • nick_rice on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think you should get the vaccine but you should not be forced to get it. If someone is worried that the vaccine is not safe then they should not have to get it if they do not want it.
  • kredding147 on 19 Apr 21
     
    Even though it has stronger effects I still think everyone should consider getting vaccinated. Of course, there should be no forcing anyone to get vaccinated, it's just important that everyone weighs their options. I was really really sick with Covid earlier this year and it was awful. If I can do my part to protect myself and everyone else I'm going to do it.
  • allisonwalker on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that it's a good thing since as the article said, it means it's working. If there is a chance for people to be able to not get the harsh effects of COVID-19 then maybe they should get the shot so they can be prepared for it. Idk.
  • saraivargas on 19 Apr 21
     
    It's still in the works so of course it's going to have different/stronger effects.
  • bklopp601 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I believe that we all should take the second dose because it will help with Covid and in fact it's definitely stronger than the first one.
  • eballenger on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think that people should be able to decide if they want the second dose or not, but I hope they do.
  • jtaulborg103 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I think more Americans should get the vaccine despite the side effects the vaccine has on them. It's our best chance of not catching or spreading the virus meaning that we can return to our normal lives. A couple of days of the side effects the vaccine has on them outweighs the long-term effects of not getting the vaccine including the fact that if you get COVID, there's a possibility your symptoms from the virus will last even after you're free of spreading the virus.
  • kinziekat02 on 19 Apr 21
     
    I agree with everyone's comments, even though the second dose has worse effects i think people should try to get it because other wise we'll never "go back to normal"
  • redrose99875 on 20 Apr 21
     
    I think we should stick to the vaccine that we KNOW works best
  • peytongrenoble on 18 May 21
     
    I think that since it is common for everyone to have these worse effects, it is going to be known as not affecting certain people. If the effects are only covid symptoms that aren't super deadly, then I think it should be okay? I think that the people who are getting it are being vulnerable and helpful for those who are nervous and reluctant to get the vaccine.
  • mgerman776 on 24 May 21
     
    Side effects of a vaccine are totally normal, it's like when you get the flu vaccine some people do get sick. Either way, it's your best hope is not getting covid. What else are you gonna do besides harm others more prone to the disease?
Bryan Pregon

Donald Trump TIME Person of the Year: How We Picked - 34 views

time.com/-year-2016-donald-trump-choice

shared by Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 07 Dec 16
     
    "It's hard to measure the scale of his disruption. Now surveys the smoking ruin of a vast political edifice that once housed parties, pundits, donors, pollsters, all those who did not see him coming or take him seriously. Out of this reckoning, Trump is poised to preside, for better or worse."
  • ...24 more comments...
  • nate kliegl on 07 Dec 16
     
    I don't feel like he disrupted anything and I feel like he's sticking to his ideas that will try to succeed America
  • Landon Mohr on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • hmiller403 on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • mitchell_johnson on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • mckenzie spanjer on 07 Dec 16
     
    I also believe that Trump hasn't done anything wrong, and he will try to help our country to the best of his ability.
  • savannah131999 on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • bayleefox1 on 07 Dec 16
     
    I would agree Trump should get this. He won it because of the hard fought presidential campaign. He got made fun of etc.
  • Deven Przybylski on 07 Dec 16
     
    I'm not surprised that he won the person of the year, but I don't believe he deserves it.
  • agrosas on 07 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • gracie1bradley on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • delaniehubbard on 12 Dec 16
     
    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?
  • zayned on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • sydney matheny on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Matthew E on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • dallastomasello on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • brettday on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Bradley Daugherty on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • madishovan on 12 Dec 16
     
    i agree with matthew trumps just terrible person.
  • kim bagshaw on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • jwells549 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • ebouvier878 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • Alex Thacker on 12 Dec 16
     
    I'm not surprised he was picked as person of the year
  • ogomez1025 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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 .
  • mwheeler21 on 12 Dec 16
     
    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.
  • amonge914 on 12 Dec 16
     
    When you first see that Donald Trump was named person of the year by TIME it really makes you wonder. After reading this article though it did answer many questions for me. For example, why? According to time it's not about being the best person it's more of who made a greater impact (good or bad). Which he did. He went from a casino owning business man, to President Elect Trump-- doing everything in his hands to influence the people of America to think in a pretty white way if you ask me. Either way, this was a good article it really did answer many questions I had. I bet this was the first time they voted someone person of the year by starting off-- hey it's not that we are on his side, but he made a big splash this year and we wrote on him.
  • Mallori Wagoner on 12 Dec 16
     
    I don't think he should be the person of the year because even though he says he is going to do good things and has done some good things he has also done very bad things and said things about people.
christa bennett

I wish my mother had aborted me - 6 views

www.guardian.co.uk/...i-wish-my-mother-aborted-me

Government politics news abortion pro-life

shared by christa bennett on 27 Aug 12 - No Cached
  • christa bennett on 27 Aug 12
     
    this article is about abortion which is an important issue in the upcoming presidential election. I just thought that it was interesting to read but I am in no way for abortion.
  • ...7 more comments...
  • Alex Snipes on 29 Aug 12
     
    Abortion is never the way to go no matter what circumstance. Whether its an accident, and inconvenience or cause by rape, abortion is never the answer. People who get abortions are selfish, if rape is the issue and you don't want to have the kid because you don't want to be reminded of that instance in your life, then give the kid up for adoption. Whether you have the abortion or not, you will always have that memory. So give that life a chance, just as you had a chance when you were born. Everyone deserves a chance at life, no matter the reason they were brought into this world.
  • Kirstina Michl on 30 Aug 12
     
    Here's the way that I see the whole abortion issue: Personally, I am pro-choice. Even though it could be considered ethically wrong to get an abortion, it's the mother's body, and she can do as she pleases with it. However, it IS wrong to use abortion as birth control. I think the issue is that some people think that they don't have to use proper birth control, and can just get an abortion. But abortion should definitely be allowed in situations of incest, because inbreeding is just never good. It causes the child in question to have problems, and while people with physical or mental issues are accepted in society, it's just common sense to prevent it when it CAN actually be prevented, like incest (don't abort the child if it's not incest). I also think that teenage girls deserve the right to get an abortion, because they're typically going to still be going to school, and I imagine that going to school pregnant is hard in every way. Of course, the best option is proper birth control, but it unfortunately isn't available in certain situations.
  • Mallory Huggins on 30 Aug 12
     
    I agree with Kirstina, abortion shouldn't be used as birth control, birth control should be used. I also think that abortions need to be available in cases of rape, as well. It's easy to say "just give the kid up for adoption" but it's much harder to guarantee that the child will actually be adopted into a good home, or will even be adopted at all. Many children spend their lives in foster homes. Besides, you would still be forcing the mother to carry a fetus for nine months, putting her life on hold for something that isn't even conscious.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    Being morally correct is so much more important than being politically correct. Abortion is in so many ways is morally wrong. To be for something that should very well be considered murder is absolutely absurd. I agree, everyone has the right to do what they want with their body, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing to their body IS right. That is like being pro drugs. Yes, if people want to do drugs, I guess that's their right, but is it right that they're doing drugs? No. That applies to abortion. And yes, "just give the kid up for adoption" IS the better way to go, because whether or not they go to a good home shouldn't be your biggest concern, it's whether or not they even HAVE a home. So give the poor helpless baby a chance, just like you had a chance, because that baby could grow up and do great things. Whether it was raised in a foster home, orphanage or by an unfit family, if you (the one who's pregnant) feel like your unfit to raise your child, wouldn't you think anything else would be better for it than killing it without ever giving it a chance?
  • Jenny Ord on 30 Aug 12
     
    i think in cases like that abortion should be allowed. i am pro-choice but when a dumb 15 year old gets an abortion just because they chose to have unprotected sex is not right. they should take responsibilities for their actions. but if the situation is like this, when the kid will be abused and poor and neglected i believe abortion should be allowed. it was sad to read this article but also good to read.
  • Alex Snipes on 30 Aug 12
     
    But when you're pregnant, how do you know they will be abused, if the parent would just have the baby and take responsibility for their actions in the beginning then they wouldnt be abused. Wouldnt you make sure of that? for the sake of your child? or are you just going to give up, take the easy way out and kill it?
  • Katelyn Owen on 30 Aug 12
     
    Its really sad to think that someone would have wanted their mothers to abort them. Even if it was what could have been best for them.
  • Mallory Huggins on 31 Aug 12
     
    Alex, did you read this article? This article is about how the parent DID have the baby and "took responsibility for their actions" and then abused the child. So, no just because a parent takes responsibility for their actions in the beginning, that doesn't mean the child won't be abused. If you look at it rationally and scientifically, abortion really isn't murder. Abortions are possible through the second trimester, or 24th week of pregnancy. At this time it is impossible for the fetus to live outside of the womb. It has only just started producing blood cells, the eyes aren't developed until the 26th week, the bones aren't developed until between the 31st and 34th week, the brain is still developing even after the 30th week, and the lungs aren't mature until after the 34th week. So is it really 'murder' to abort something that has less consciousness and is less developed than a mouse?
  • Payton Whiteaker on 31 Aug 12
     
    I am pro-choice, and agree with Mallory and Kirstina. Sure, it's not fair for the unborn baby, but is it fair for the parent(s). In the situation of rape, definitely not. Giving birth to someones child that physically harmed you, a mother should not have to do that. Not to mention how expensive it is to have a child. Why should a 15 year old have to pay that sort of money to have a child? The real problem, they don't, and the parents have to suffer for their child, which is unfair to them. If you want to say it's still morally wrong, it's just as bad as stealing thousands of dollars from those who gave birth to you just to let that child live.
maceep

CNN Poll: JFK tops presidential rankings for last 50 years - 1 views

politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/...ial-rankings-for-last-50-years

Politics

shared by maceep on 22 Nov 13 - No Cached
  • maceep on 22 Nov 13
     
    John F. Kennedy is the most popular president of the last half century, according to a new national poll
  • ...3 more comments...
  • jsteenbock23 on 22 Nov 13
     
    JFK was very popular in the eyes of the people. He also seemed to trying to do great things as President, it's a shame that he died so early in his Presidency.
  • Jakson Cole on 25 Nov 13
     
    I think that this is a neat article and a great way to honor JFK. But every president is different. Every term that they serve has different circumstances and situations. There is no way to accurately measure who was the "best" president. This poll is just a matter of opinion or a "popularity contest".
  • nlarsen15 on 25 Nov 13
     
    Interesting... I could understand why JFK's the most popular. But for some reason, I had a feeling Reagan would be the topper. Nice article :)
  • jkeller068 on 25 Nov 13
     
    That was a really cool article..lets you have more on the mind than just school related things..nice job!(:
  • McKenzie O'Brien on 25 Nov 13
     
    The article was neat. JFK was a great president. It's just sad that he had die in his early presidency.
valtodd

Texas bomber dead: Man blows himself up in dramatic standoff with FBI and police - 16 views

www.standard.co.uk/...h-fbi-and-police-a3795081.html

News

shared by valtodd on 21 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • valtodd on 21 Mar 18
     
    He ended up waiting until at least one person got close and blew himself up, the officer that was close got thrown back. They have stated that they are not sure if other people were helping him so they will keep looking. I personally think that he didn't want to go to jail for what he had done so he did a suicide bombing.
  • ...3 more comments...
  • dthomas713 on 21 Mar 18
     
    Are they sure they have all the bombs? They mentioned in the article that there could be more bombs out there planted before he died, and what are they doing to find those. Also, did they have any other suspects? I wonder if there were others helping him or people who knew about it. I feel like the reason for the last bombing and the fact that it was a suicide bombing played into the fact that he knew he was going to get caught and didn't want to be put in jail.
  • aasmus466 on 21 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Darby, how do we know that is all the bombs? I think he probably had people helping him with this. They can't even say why he did it they had an idea it might have been a racial thing but they don't know I also agree about him doing a suicide bombing because he didn't want to go to jail
  • cceder858 on 21 Mar 18
     
    I don't know why this bomber placed bombs in boxes seams strange to me
  • cjones560 on 21 Mar 18
     
    In the article they say that the bomber pre-setup bombs that explode when people get near them. But the article also said that they thought the bomber was targeting races such as hispanic and african american. I don't understand how the bomber could be targeting a specific race when the bombs were set up ahead of time. The article also mentions that there still might be bombs that he planted before he died, so how can he be targeting a specific race?
  • gmohamed284 on 21 Mar 18
     
    They did mention that there could be more bombs but i doubt there is. I think if there are other bombs out there then maybe it was more then a one man job.
Bryan Pregon

Democrats Propose Phasing in $15 Minimum Wage Over Five Years - Bloomberg - 34 views

www.bloomberg.com/...-bill-ahead-of-stimulus-action

shared by Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 27 Jan 21
     
    What is your view on increasing the minimum wage? This is a BIG topic that I'm sure has perspectives on both sides.
  • ...31 more comments...
  • bigslide on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think it's about perspective. a more privileged person can live without this change, they would be fine. But for others, going to college is not an option. Either because they don't have enough money, or they're just too busy with kids and keeping the house for them. Money should be livable. 1000$ a month is great for normal teens who just want some cash, but for people who work to live, 1000$ is not enough. People need to pay bills, hospital bills, food, water, shelter. It's not just "poor people", it everyone who is struggling, which is a lot more than you think.
  • wnichols1416 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things
  • alanmartinez01 on 27 Jan 21
     
    This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items
  • masonmascarenas on 27 Jan 21
     
    The idea of raising the minimum wage is a good idea however 15 dollars an hour is a good amount of money which is more likely to raise the cost of living bringing us back to square one.
  • rileegood on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think the minimum wage should be raised. The minimum wage in many other countries makes so much more sense, as people can actually live off them. With how low ours is, people are struggling immensely.
  • qanderson136 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I do not think raising the minimum wage is the right move because there are very many small businesses that will not be able to survive also, I believe that this will cause major inflation, making everything more expensive, so overall raising the minimum wage wouldn't be making things any better.
  • thepriceisright on 27 Jan 21
     
    Inflation is making the prices of houses go up anyway regardless of the minimum wage, so we need to make the minimum wage compatible with modern prices. I don't know if I believe it should be 15$ but it should be more than it is now.
  • owenjacobs on 27 Jan 21
     
    i don't think that raising the minimum wage to $15 is necessary, with the way the wage is set up now it give people an incentive to move up in life for a better job better pay. You may work at burger king for $9 an hour, that's not a lot so you want to do better and get a better job that pays 15 an hour but if you start out at 15 there is not really any incentive to move up in life when you can do better and achieve higher for your self and your family
  • vperez191 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think it is a good idea to raise the minimum wage because it is pretty low but we should not raise it that much because It could be hard for the smaller businesses
  • thomaschau on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage would only cause a business to increase their prices on products to make up the amount of money they're paying employees so we would just have another problem to deal with.
  • arosas733 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think that raising the minimum wage could be good but also bad. I personally think $15 would be too high and somewhere around $9-$11 would be a better option as it is a little low right now. Would raise costs of living but not by too much, and raising the minimum wage already could increase tax revenue. But from the article, it says they aim to increase to $9.25 then $15 by 2025, but I still believe by then it still is a pretty high number and prices of things will increase by a lot.
  • hschimmer540 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage will only cost businesses to suffer especially small businesses because they aren't making a lot, to begin with, and businesses will have to raise their prices to make back the money they are losing.
  • hschimmer540 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I agree with both Thomas and Amirah we all had the same points and seem to have pretty much the same point of view on the subject.
  • joeypo10 on 27 Jan 21
     
    I feel like if we raise the minimum wage people that worked for the pay they deserved will feel like they did all that for nothing and eventually all the workers will lose their work ethic and we will have worse products. On the other hand people that are already doing subpar work will be getting decent pay for terrible work. This just means there getting rewarded for doing a bad job. Just makes no sense.
  • allisonwalker on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think that raising the minimum wage can be beneficial; for those who are working long days and not making enough to live without help from the government. If we raise the minimum wage, then those who are suffering will able to live a little better.
  • jacobknauss on 27 Jan 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage would just have a negative effect on smaller businesses and the economy in general. It would be pointless raising the minimum wage because of inflation. Some of you guys are saying the cost of living is currently too high so raising the wage would be a good thing for them. What some of y'all don't understand is that raising the minimum wage will also raise the cost of living.
  • noahsandbothe on 27 Jan 21
     
    Raising the minimum wage is a good idea. As the article says it would be over 5 years and there are many cities that have a $15 minimum wage and inflation isn't jacking up prices to an unbearable extent. No matter if the minimum wage was increased inflation will continue to rise and that will just put minimum wage workers in a worse situation with the same amount of money for more expensive food, water, clothes, etc.
  • akrimmel345 on 27 Jan 21
     
    It seems better because you have the chance to make more money, but in my opinion all this does is inflate everything else over time.
  • qanderson136 on 28 Jan 21
     
    Raising the minimum wage will cause all businesses who have people working for under $15 an hour to raise their prices on their goods, this would make pretty much everything you buy more expensive like groceries, gas, and everyday necessities more expensive. Also across the US the minimum wage changes so for example Denver CO which is an expensive city to live in already had their minimum wage set at $14.77. There are also small rural towns in Iowa which are cheap to live in so there is no need to have a $15 minimum wage there.
  • brandonwch on 01 Feb 21
     
    It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ isn't enough! It's what was asked for years ago, and inflation has changed since then. Our minimum wage has, in fact, fallen over the years due to inflation. Prices won't raise by any significant margin. According to business insider (https://www.businessinsider.com/denmark-mcdonalds-pays-20-hourly-wages-2014-10), we could double the wages of employees, and give them benifits, and the prices of goods would be barely changed. Inflation will increase with or without an increase in the minimum wage, because it has increased in the past few years without one. An increase in the minimum wage would help people buy more. Finally, the idea that prices *have* to go up is bull. Nothing *has* to happen. McDonalds doesn't *have* to raise prices if wages were increased, because they would still make a massive profit, just not as absurd of one as they make now.
  • saraivargas on 01 Feb 21
     
    I believe if they raise the minimum wage they would need to increase every job as well,for example if you make above $15 and hour you would need to raise your wage as well. This would need to be done over the course of years however. We can't raise it all in such a small amount of time.
  • qanderson136 on 01 Feb 21
     
    Brandon, according to your source, McDonald's "has warned that wage increases would force franchisees to raise menu prices." Also, I have read your article and have failed to find the spot where it says that after wages have been doubled and employees have been given extra benefits that prices of goods wouldn't change. It was comparing Denmark to the US when Denmark was one of the most expensive places to live in the world so it would also not be fair or accurate to compare them.
  • zeaksorensen on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think this will affect different groups differently. with people who never had money problem's not really being affected by this, and those who have will be greatly affected because of the change in income.
  • gbrochu915 on 01 Feb 21
     
    What I think is that it is good and I think it is bad in a way because if we raise the minimum wage to $15 and hour we would most likely have to raise the good paying jobs as well, and I want to think it is good because for the people who do only make minimum wage right now they would be able to afford more and be able to live better and not have to worry as much but then again, I think that would raise the prices to live and its would just be a big loop coming back to this.
  • matts999 on 01 Feb 21
     
    We should increase minimum wave because those who have money problems or are in debt will be ebal to get back on their feet quicker and with less help.
  • gavync_alhs on 01 Feb 21
     
    It would seem useless to a lot of people, but I kinda see it as an opportunity for teens who are saving money for the future. With that additional money, a teen can save much more than they usually do. The minimum wage might not help people who are struggling to get by, but for teens, it would be a nice boost.
  • jdogan on 01 Feb 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea because as of right now the minimum wage isn't a livable wage. The cost of living along with inflation has been rising consistently but the minimum wage hasn't changed in a very long time. So as of now, even the richest companies have no incentive to raise wages. Forcing them to raise their wages is really the only solution to cut into the massive wealth difference between the upperclass and the lower middle class.
  • haileejoy on 03 Feb 21
     
    i think we should raise minimum wage because even now its a lot more common for teens to be left on their own to buy things they need. some teens have more responsibilities than others and the current minimum wage does next to nothing in terms of help. i know tons of people in the same situation as me where they are struggling to buy things for their children while paying other bills because the highest paying job theyre able to get is still only $11 an hour. i just think minimum wage needs to be changed to reflect current situations in america.
  • mynameisjeff1 on 08 Feb 21
     
    The minimum wage isn't enough to live on right now, and with inflation being an economic factor the price of living with follow the phasing in of a $15 minimum wage. We don't need to keep on raising the minimum wage, but instead work on lowering the cost of living.
  • cadenoles on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think we should definitely raise the minimum wage. If we raise it students can put more into savings and prepare themselves for the world. If a student makes 15 dollars an hour, works 18 hours a week, and puts half of it away for 2 years they will have $12,312 dollars after taxes. This can cover everything a graduate needs to keep on their feet for a good half-year.
  • bklopp601 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think we should raise the minimum raise to $15 dollars because $7 dollars isn't enough to help others that have a big family in their house.
  • tsilva588 on 08 Feb 21
     
    Personally, I believe we should not raise the minimum wage because there's a reason it's minimum wage because they're minimum jobs. A slight rise in the adult minimum wage would be fine due to them needing to support what they have but the youth wage can stay the same.
  • jtaulborg103 on 08 Feb 21
     
    I think raising the minimum wage is a good idea. People can't live off of $7.00 to provide for their families. Some people don't have a better education or aren't a good fit for a higher paying job and $7.00 isn't enough.
Mallory Huggins

BPI sues ABC News for $1.2 billion in defamation - 1 views

www.progressivecattle.com/index.php

defamation libel

shared by Mallory Huggins on 14 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Mallory Huggins on 14 Sep 12
     
    Interesting article. Another issue this causes which wasn't discussed in the article is how this will affect ranchers in SD. It's too late for them to cut back on breeding, and this could give some ranchers difficulties in selling their cattle. With how high the price of feed has gone this year, this could mean that SD cattle ranchers may see a serious drop in profit this year.
Bryan Pregon

Is this high school dress code sexist? - CNN Video - 45 views

www.cnn.com/...kg-high-school-dress-code.kcci

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Mar 15
     
    "Some people are calling an assembly dress code at an Iowa high school sexist. CNN affiliate KCCI reports."
  • ...57 more comments...
  • kylecrowl on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they may have gone overboard explaining everything the girls need to wear in full detail. I thought some of the comments were disrespectful to girls and I can easily see how they were offended by this.
  • alexander4434 on 16 Mar 15
     
    i beleve that it is true that there are more options for women to look less than formal clothing so it is not sexiest
  • kdankiw188 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this dress code, while definitely explaining what the girls can and cannot wear, has gone too far in some of the wording they use. "Choose and outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman, but covered enough to show you are a lady" is not an ok thing to say to a group of high school girls, especially if they are honors students. Yes I do think it is sexist.
  • Cecilia Saldana on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this dress code letter had good intent, but it just came off the wrong way. I think if they would have just given a list on what not to wear rather then using saying, "you are a woman and should be covered enough to show you are a lady. With that statement I believe that it is sexist. Your clothes, and how you present your self shouldn't determine on whether you're a lady or not.
  • shandahansen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter is showing the outlook they see girls wear on a daily occurrence. At some points in a girls perspective we feel as if they are more strict on what we wear, They could of been a little easier and worded it differently so it didn't come out so wrong. But I don't think it sexist at all because it asking girls to wear whats appropriate to been seen in public.
  • dawsonmantich on 16 Mar 15
     
    If the school wishes for such a strict dress code then they should hand out the clothes they feel that are "pretty" enough for their girls to wear. I believe that the dress code is moderately sexist, even considering that there are more options regarding clothing for women. It is appropriate to keep their students looking classy, but not to the point of having no freedom when picking an outfit.
  • claireboes on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do believe that this dress code is sexist. There are lines in the requirements of the female code hat suggest they should be more modest than that of the males, not drawing attention to certain parts of the body and containing a level of ladylike stature that outdoes the gentlemanly requirements of the males. The four paragraphs "needed" for the girls. The two lines that strike me as the most opposite "Be classy." for the boys and "Think modesty." for the girls. It implies that they are letting the boys have more free reign with their opinion of classy and tightening the hold on the girls' idea of modesty, giving them fewer options.
  • montanagarbez999 on 16 Mar 15
     
    It think the dress code it not sexist but it does go a little overboard. It kind of seems like it is going straight for the ladies, and could calm down on all the detail.
  • peytonjs on 16 Mar 15
     
    This is very upsetting to the whole deal of what is appropriate and what is not. The school is berating the girls on how they choose to dress in a letter. This "dress code" should not be allowed to come trough, as it is limiting how girls want to dress, sure they should dress in something revealing as they should know better, but given them four paragraphs on how they should dress to one event is ridiculous. If the school feels embarrass to the point of giving a dress code to the girls then they should hold an event. It is completely sexist because not every girl owns skimpy outfits, or dresses badly. Every girl is a lady in the first place and should not be limited because someone else believes they dress in revealing clothing. Guys can dress in revealing clothing just as much as girls can.
  • desiree13 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I do not believe it is sexist because they are specifically making men wear a outfit. They are giving girls freedom within guidelines . On the other hand the way they address the first paragraph is a little sexist because they do make it like you have to be pretty to go.
  • jay_hubbard on 16 Mar 15
     
    The dress code letter my be considered sexist in the eyes of some people, but women tend to push the boundary's of the code to a far more extreme so it is only fair that the school be more strict and draw more attention to the matter of proper dress apparel with females. Men in school get in trouble if they are wearing clothes that are profane and clothes that are not appropriate for school, yet when females get into trouble, it is automatically sexist. It would not be this way if females did wear such revealing clothes to a school and then did not proceeded to after being told and warned by staff and administration. In some cases, schools have to give such strict guidelines to the female population of a school, even if it does not apply to every student.
  • noahseyboth on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the generation that were in right now would require a dress code. I personally don't think its sexist because i feel some women under dress, i also feel that it makes the school look more professional.
  • jborwick on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is sexist because there was no need to have four paragraphs explaining every article of clothing that these girls could wear to this event. But, in another way it is not sexist because there are many styles girls are able to wear, some being more informal and/or more revealing than others. All this letter really would have needed was length of skirts/ dresses and the spaghetti straps, no need for the first and last paragraph.
  • Christopher Daniels on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that women do tend to show more revealing outfits than men, but it's no exuse to single them out. Men and women both should have fair dress code rules that can give eacother both the same amount of rules, yet reasonable. Certain rules apply to certain genders, but the line was crossed in this sexist act.
  • bchurch743 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that it is sexist because it gives the girls more and it list little for the guys. It tells the boys to look classy and tells the girls to look pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show they are a lady.
  • diegomartinez97 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think they're making a big deal out of this, This should not be done because students don't deserve to have this dress code.
  • danielaespinoza on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter was sexist because it made it look like girls had more possibilities to breaking the guidelines.
  • rylanrichards on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think this is sexist because of the difference between the guys and the girls. It told the girls that in order to be a woman they had to be pretty. They told the guys to be classy. It's a Catholic school, those girls know what to wear and what not to wear.
  • jimmymc731 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this video and letter is some what sexist. I believe that you should be able to wear what you want, but appropriately. If you are told to wear something and have to wear something do it. I agree that schools should have some sort of uniform, because if you dress nicely everyday you feel better about themselves. The reason i feel like this is sexist is because men have two things to wear and while girls have so much to worry about and pay attention to.
  • abbyotten on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist. The writer of this letter automatically assumed stereotype about what girls would wear or draw attention to on their bodies. This letter obviously favors men and is much more strict on women.
  • jordan_love on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel that the letter was sexist. The letter only said one or two things about how boys should dress and then gave almost a whole essay on how girls should dress.
  • meganferleman on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe it is sexist to both of them honestly. They went over board on how girls should look and what they should look like. They want them to show off, but they are saying this to high school girls. Than again they are telling the boys they need to shave.
  • leomendez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that this is indeed sexist. They pretty much told the guys, "Hey, wear pants, dress shoes, shave and take out the earrings and you're good." but they they told the girls, "Where this, don't wear that, you can wear this but not that. try not to look like the women of the night. thanks!" i think that that is messed up
  • Kevin Branigan on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that it somewhat sexist. Telling to dress modestly and respectfully as they did with the guys would've been enough I think. I don't believe they needed to go that far into it if they didn't for the guys
  • rduncan264 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel this letter is just wrong. I believe that you should be able to choose what you want to wear but by being appropriate. It is a private school so if they assign a school uniform you have to wear it, but the way they are saying and telling you what to wear is not so much sexist but just wrong. Telling students they must dress according to their achievements and to look pretty as if they aren't already isn't right.
  • lcapel742 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I wouldn't say this is extremely sexist, it's more like it's just really ridiculous. I understand wanting everyone to look classy and professional, but you do not need that many sentences to basically just say, no flaunting what your momma gave ya.
  • zachmurray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like they went a little over board with this. They may have been a little sexist just because they had so much more information for the girls on what they can and cant wear than they had for the boys on what they can wear. I personally think that there should be no dress codes at all. just because it lets kids express themselves, but in an appropriate way.
  • jesse_lorenzen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that these guidelines are similar to our school guidelines according to dress code, but I don't think it was right to just blatantly put it out there. Now if this is a huge problem I could understand this but The reactions from students make this seem like dress code violations are not a huge problem at their school, I think the teachers should have trusted the girls at the school to dress appropriately.
  • britthutch12 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe that this letter is sexist. I think that the school could have easily got their point across on what to wear for girls in a sentence, not four paragraphs. Girls know what is tasteful, and what isn't and if they choose to follow the dress code is a choice not because they were unsure on how to dress.
  • swilder988 on 16 Mar 15
     
    With no context this letter may seem like they care more about what girls look like. This is probably not true, with a guy there is a a lot less you can mess up and look not modest. With guys it's just a shirt and pants, what can really besides them not wearing a nice shirt and pants. It is not unreasonable for a private school to want their kids to dress modestly. I'm also willing to bet at that school and probably every private school there are at least four times as many dress code violations for girls than boys, thus warranting four paragraphs to the boys one.
  • mmuffley163 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. The reason being is because I feel like girls should be able to wear what the want whiten reason. Dress code should be appropriate. However it shouldn't separate between boys and girls.
  • zack gray on 16 Mar 15
     
    I believe this to be very sexist because of the length and repetition they use. I do agree with Ron Burgundy(anchor man movie), stay classy but this is to extensive. In repeating don't show off and telling them exactly what to wear. They could have left it at dress classy and lady like.
  • dillonpalen on 16 Mar 15
     
    I agree with alexander4434 that women have more types of clothes then men do and that it is not sexist. And men don't have much different types of clothes and women have more to choose from and need to cover up and not show so much.
  • cschnackel824 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I feel like this letter is sexist. Seeing only two sentences for men and four paragraphs for women that would be sexist. I think the school could have worded it better for the women. I also think it is kind of rude to make men shave. I don't see how that matters in high school.
  • angel fernandez on 16 Mar 15
     
    I fell like the article is not sexist because some girls don't dress like a lady would, so that would help them look more presentable. The guys didn't have a lot of instructions because they don't have a lot of styles to choose from like the girls do. The school shouldn't tell someone how to dress but if they see something that someone would not wear to a fancy place they should correct them.
  • sarahh_821 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think it's a good dress code but had way more expectations for women than it did men. They could have made it just as simple as the mens with less detail as to what they can and can't wear. The men did't have anything listed that they weren't allowed to wear. Something in particular was the shoes comment saying they had to wear dress shoes, then going into detail saying if there shoes they wear to the beach, then they cant wear them to school, also no high heels. But with the mens all they said was "dress shoes" no elaboration or what they can't wear as they did with the women. I can see how people would think it sexist, it has way more expectations and standards for girls which isn't fair. But i also can see where they're coming from because girls express themselves through clothes i think more than men do.. So maybe they needed to be clear on what not to wear, whereas its pretty self explanatory for men.
  • ccannon666 on 16 Mar 15
     
    This letter is not "sexist". It may be degrading or offensive, but it's not sexist. In this day and age, it is common knowledge to know girls don't dress to standard. Look around and you will see many examples of this at almost every turn. Short skirts/shorts, tank tops, low cut shirts, and many other revealing articles. The school is trying to be official and you are to abide by their rules and if you are offended by the letter, you might be one of the girls who need to change the way they dress. The only reason the guys did not have as long or in-depth of a letter because they simply don't need it. More often than not, guys are not violating dress code.
  • donaldc802 on 16 Mar 15
     
    I think that the letter is sexist. They drag out the girls section which could have been summed up, like the boys was. Most of the time the dress code is followed, sometimes its stretched a bit short. I think that it was like they were being sarcastic almost, in the girls section.
  • dianaschrader on 18 Mar 15
     
    This is not a sexist letter. I think many people may find it extreme because they can't wear legging to school , and no leggings are NOT pants. I think the facial hair part for guys is a little much but it's only for the school get over it. The part for ladies I agree had to be a bit more explanatory because people will push any and all boundaries, especially if they are not specified.
  • Bryan Pregon on 03 Sep 15
     
    As we discuss OUR school dress code, do you think Dowling has created a sexist policy for students?
  • jroberson300 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like its a little sexist towards women. They have a lot more rules to follow than the boys do.
  • anthony309 on 03 Sep 15
     
    No its not it just needs more explanation for girls because the different things they can wear. The students are making a bigger deal then it is.
  • baddison753 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel its kinda sexist that the women have to be explained what to wear in complete detail compared to the men but then again they just want their school to look nice for the ceremony
  • guillermosolorio on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this dress code is fine.Staff just want students to be dressed appropriate.
  • jjacobs079 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think they went overboard. I think it's sexist for them to say "you are a woman and covered enough to show your a lady". They have a lot more rules for girls then guys. Yes I think it's very sexist.
  • gabbymorley on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is sexist because, it is telling guys to just be classy but girls have to dress a certain way we either feel pretty or show our achievements. We should be able to wear what we want that makes us feel comfortable in our own skin.
  • seanveazie on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think this is not a sexist letter. The part where it says dress modest enough to be a lady but pretty enough to be a woman. Many girls do dress that should not be so skimpy. But these people are honors students. The code should have just said dress formally and follow the dress code.
  • austindueling1 on 03 Sep 15
     
    It's wrong that they treated women like that sexist it very detailed for the women and the men just says be classy so yes it's sexist
  • rallman915 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think it is sexist because the girls have a lot more rules than the boys do.
  • ernieclements on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like the policy was not written equally between Boys and girls. The four paragraphs written for girls seems very excessive. The boys and girls should just be told- "Dress formally"
  • johnschmidthuber on 03 Sep 15
     
    I feel like it is sexist, mostly because of the detail it goes into about the woman's dress code. It would have been much simpler to just say dress nice like they did for the guys, but they blew it out of proportion.
  • Renee Borgaila on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe its sexist, it does have some lines that are sexist, like the line "Choose an outfit that is pretty enough to show you are a woman and covered enough to show yo are a lady." And it's very detailed, especially when it comes to the skirt.
  • tiaross on 03 Sep 15
     
    I wouldn't say it is necessarily sexist, but I wouldn't agree with some of the things that were said in the letter. These women know how to dress appropriately for formal events. They didn't need to read a whole book to know how to dress.
  • Sunshine Wink on 03 Sep 15
     
    This dress code letter had good intentions but the way that they gave the boys 2 sentences and the girls 4 paragraphs was not fair to the girls, making them feel like it was sexist.
  • sophiataylor001 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I believe that it intended well, but definitely could have been worded better. That could have easily been summed up as dress professionally. If they are inviting students because of their smarts, surely the students would be able to figure out what that meant. The paragraphs were too excessive.
  • katiepetersen005 on 03 Sep 15
     
    I think that it should be for both genders not just girls. I don't want to see any one's butt or chest.
  • christopher721 on 03 Sep 15
     
    There is no doubt about it being sexist, but that is only because of the excessive "putting down," saying such and such should attract attention to this, and not this. If they would have stopped at a basic "be classy, keep it modest, and make it conservative." Then all would have been fine.
  • ryanlegg on 08 Sep 15
     
    There should be standards for both men and women but the remarks in the letter was plain sexist.
  • Bryan Pregon on 02 Dec 15
     
    Is this relevant for a discussion of our dress code or are private schools a different story?
Bryan Pregon

It's not just Facebook. Thousands of companies are spying on you (opinion) - CNN - 4 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Bryan Pregon on 29 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 29 Mar 18
     
    "But for every article about Facebook's creepy stalker behavior, thousands of other companies are breathing a collective sigh of relief that it's Facebook and not them in the spotlight. Because while Facebook is one of the biggest players in this space, there are thousands of other companies that spy on and manipulate us for profit."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Connor McHood on 11 Apr 18
     
    Fun fact: on Facebook, there's a place in the settings where you can actually see what it believes your interests to be, including what it thinks your stance is on American politics.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 11 Apr 18
     
    I spoke to a friend who said that she woke up to an email saying her facebook information had been accessed and seen by a large number of other sources, outside of facebook. She said the cause of this was one of her facebook friends downloaded an app and all the friends of this person had gotten the same email about their information. It is just wrong how so many different companies are taking their users for advantage.
  • saratruong on 01 May 18
     
    I found this new information within the article to be very disturbing, and yet, there are some aspects that I'm not surprised about. I have already comprehended the fact that Google can track all of your searches and that causes ads to be related to your own interests but for media to constantly monitor my actions just from my phone? That's disturbing once you think and look into it.
  • amberhatcher943 on 02 May 18
     
    I was watching a video actually on Facebook and this couple heard about facebook stalking people so they decided to talk about cat food for 3 days with facebook open and offline then they opened it one day to cat food adds on their facebook which is really creepy to me.
Bryan Pregon

Why Donald Trump Blinked on Guns | Time - 30 views

time.com/...donald-trump-gun-proposals

shared by Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 13 Mar 18
     
    What are your thoughts on the gun control debate. It will be 1 month tomorrow that Parkland FL school shooter killed 17 and seriously wounded 17 others. Has the outrage become "yesterdays news"? How do the POLITICS of this issue make solutions difficult to reach?
  • ...12 more comments...
  • levihardiman on 13 Mar 18
     
    My thoughts on the debate is that guns should be more restricted, but not completely disallowed. Ideas like banning bump stocks are very good, but going without due process is a side that isn't good. However, the outrage and protesting about mass shootings like parkland and sandy hook should never become just yesterday news and should be a constant focus, but due to media jumping off issues quickly for ratings, how divisive the issue is among political groups, and the NRA lobbying extremely for gun rights, it is hard to reach any sort of conclusion and compromise,
  • saratruong on 13 Mar 18
     
    I do believe that our government did have intentions of wanting to change in order to prevent gun violence, but as time passed, they seem to have little effort now to do anything. Yes, the solution may take a long time for everyone to be on board with, especially to those that support guns, they are now neglecting the idea. From the government's perspective, it seems to be old news to them, but society and civilians are still trying to remind and encourage the White House to make a change.
  • jacklancers71 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think trumps thoughts on arming teacher is a good idea because it would keep schools safe and their students. It would also make the school shootings less likely to happen
  • tylerrardin on 13 Mar 18
     
    I believe that we should ban bump stocks, and raise the age to buy a gun with stricter background checks.
  • dthomas713 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Sara. It even said in the article that most of Trumps supporters republicans that don't want stricter gun laws. With that being said, he doesn't want to lose those supporters. It also talked about how he was for tightening the laws right after the shooting happened; moving into the idea without really knowing about gun laws. During the luncheon he hosted, he didn't stick to what he had proposed.
  • ghannan137 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think sadly it has begun to become yesterdays news. At first everyone was outraged and everyone wanted results with plans of walkouts and things like that but as time passes people slowly started talking about it less and the press for change lessened.
  • sarahj046 on 13 Mar 18
     
    agreeing with sarah and dthomas how they had put their attention to it at first but after few days and weeks had passed they had lost the interest to put as much attention to it. They do need to put more attention and change the age to buy an assault rifle as it is as deadly as any other weapon, especially to an 18-year-old. The government risks more lives being taken with more school shootings by people who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place.
  • Mackenzie Frush on 13 Mar 18
     
    This outrage has become slightly a thing of yesterday. I know it's not completely out of people's minds because there is still a lot of local and national talk about the walkouts and movements planned to continue the spread of awareness. In this article it states that Trump had changed his mind on the gun legislation a few weeks following the tragedy. He was all for changing the ages and putting restrictions on the gun laws, but was very quick to change his mind after the media died down on the subject. Most of his supporters, shown in private polls, are not interested in changing the gun laws and legislation because he still wants to hold as many supporters as he can. The outrage seems to be yesterday news because it isn't in the media all the much anymore. I don't think our country has moved on from the tragedy yet because there is still a lot of talk about the national walkouts and the other movements that are being pushed to enforce change in the legislation.
  • esorenson on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel like as the president he should stick with his ideas and support them.Not switch up because hes afraid to upset people.The people voted him in he shouldn't cave because hes scared of the NRA when its our safety he should worry about
  • aasmus466 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I agree with Grace. She right it has become old news which is sad, people should talk more about the safety of people. And like Grace said they plan all these walkouts and stuff but people stopped talking about it which made the press quit talking about it, and if the press isn't talking about it then no one else is. And if no one is talking then there is going to be no change
  • chaseburns on 13 Mar 18
     
    I think that this news has become "old". Huge amounts of support at first, but the momentum died eventually. The whole conversation is slowly dying because of the realities of politics too. Like one person said in the article, you can just swing a pen around for a bit and give way to legislation. It takes time. But sadly, this topic won't stay around long enough.
  • molson133 on 13 Mar 18
     
    When these shooting first happened the government had intentions of taking control of gun violence and preventing these type of events. But after a while their effort to control this has reduced to little or nothing. From the governments perspective they think that it will go away and but the community wants to have the laws change.
  • majesticdragon1 on 13 Mar 18
     
    I feel maybe they should be more strict on guns and the background checks be more thorough. just wondering why 21 for semiauto pistols but 18 for fully auto AR's. It should be the other way around.
  • cceder858 on 13 Mar 18
     
    its yesterday news because after the shooting we been talking about to raise the age in assault rifle as in the last couple of weeks so this shooting gave a heads up about school safety and the age to buy assault rifles.
Bryan Pregon

This is why I can't custom-make cakes for same-sex weddings - 27 views

www.usatoday.com/...917631001

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 17 - No Cached
lynx_2019 liked it
  • Bryan Pregon on 04 Dec 17
     
    "Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. Oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CO Civil Rightswill be heard Tuesday. "
  • ...11 more comments...
  • emedina132 on 04 Dec 17
     
    he was only defending his religion and his believe just like they were and he hoped they could've seen it it too
  • connor garges on 04 Dec 17
     
    Despite his religious beliefs no body should have the right to discriminate against customers based on race, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, etc. If the situation were reversed I am positive he would be outraged that someone discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs. He is using the excuse of "standing up for his religious beliefs" to hide his hateful homophobia.
  • shunjitabata on 04 Dec 17
     
    I think gay people can get wedding cakes, they just wants to do usual wedding system.
  • aruss77 on 04 Dec 17
     
    I think that as the owner of the bakery, he has the right to serve whoever he would like, it is ridiculous that some people would go as far as to sue someone for a stupid cake, grow up and get a life.Stop victimizing yourselves.
  • dmckiddy517 on 04 Dec 17
     
    I feel that the business owner can choose not give them the cake. A business has "the right to refuse service to anyone". Besides, its not like that business is the only place they can get their wedding cake.
  • nfahrenkrog on 04 Dec 17
     
    As the owner of the shop he should have the ability to refuse service to someone if their request goes against his beliefs, also the couple instead of just going to another place to get a cake and not causing all these problems decided to make it a big deal wasting time and money for both parties. Both parties involved are in the wrong
  • jeremyzuehlke on 04 Dec 17
     
    Agreed Aaron
  • rhoag202 on 04 Dec 17
     
    I can see where both sides are coming from. But any business has the right to refuse to serve anyone they feel like. People may see it as wrong but any business can do this.
  • jacob_mundorf on 04 Dec 17
     
    Nobody should be discriminated against, but with our first amendment right says he legal does not have. "congress shall make no law respecting religion an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
  • sebas01 on 04 Dec 17
     
    I wonder what is going to happen next.
  • bethanyfoley on 04 Dec 17
     
    I agree that he does have the right to deny service to people and it seems he was very polite about, even if I don't personally agree with it I still think he shouldn't be sued. Although I do find it interesting how in this article the couple didn't have any quotes or anything.
  • Bryan Pregon on 05 Dec 17
     
    To clarify, this article published in USToday was an editorial written BY the baker in this case to give his side. Also a good video with both sides explaining their views https://goo.gl/73fXsW Although I didn't find an article written by the couple, here is another NYTimes story which has some of the legal issues explained from their side. https://goo.gl/sAacw4
  • lynxfire on 06 Dec 17
     
    this is stupid it should not made who is getting married to who if they want a cake they should get one
brandonwch

Education Should Be About Building Democratic Citizens, Not Compliant Workers - 7 views

jacobinmag.com/...education-schools-south-africa

shared by brandonwch on 01 Mar 21 - No Cached
  • brandonwch on 01 Mar 21
     
    While the article is about South Africa, many of it's points ring true for America. Education, when you think about it in the deepest manner, is not really about Education; it's about proving you'd be a good worker, and not much else. But I'm curious to see what others think.
  • jackiegonzalez on 01 Mar 21
     
    I agree with the article about how schools should focus on building democratic citizens, instead of just good workers. Young people need to know their rights and how they can impact the country, and some places don't do a good job teaching children those things. I've personally learned a lot about my rights in government class, so I think our school is doing a good job.
  • sydneykolln on 07 Mar 21
     
    I believe that the education system in America is mainly about passing more than it is about learning. I feel like I'm working a job and the assignments that I finish are just to get the job done. However, I believe that when students actual learn, understand, and are amazed by different topics, that is the true point of education. In all, while this article was about South Africa, it shows how we shouldn't be focusing on being a good worker but how we should be focusing on becoming better citizens.
Bryan Pregon

Acquitted again by Senate, Trump still a powerful force in Republican politics | Reuters - 31 views

www.reuters.com/...ublican-politics-idUSKBN2AE04T

shared by Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21
     
    There are MANY issues to discuss in this article. Now that the Impeachment trial is finished, I am interested to see what your thoughts on this process are and if you have any predictions of the future of politics for Donald Trump and the Republican party!
  • ...20 more comments...
  • laceyperry067 on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • brandonwch on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • masonmascarenas on 16 Feb 21
     
    I fully expect Trump to run again for president in 2024 as well as an exponential amount more in votes towards the republican party.
  • gbrochu915 on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • zeaksorensen on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • ericschmidtberge on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • owenjacobs on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • abbidominguez on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • jackiegonzalez on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • Bryan Pregon on 16 Feb 21
     
    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)
  • jdogan on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • joeypo10 on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • allisonwalker on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • peytongrenoble on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • haileejoy on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • vperez191 on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • arosas733 on 16 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • ndvorak on 17 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • lamador794 on 18 Feb 21
     
    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
  • milo_nordman on 18 Feb 21
     
    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.
  • nick_rice on 19 Feb 21
     
    I agree that Trump will run for president when he gets the chance again but it is hard to say if he will even be president again after what he did with the capital.
  • wnichols1416 on 22 Feb 21
     
    Trump said he will be running for president in 2024. I believe it's going to be hard for him to win After the capital situation because it showed he's not accountable for his actions
Bryan Pregon

Presidential election tests Facebook friendships - CNN.com - 1 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

election facebook tests Government

shared by Bryan Pregon on 12 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Bryan Pregon on 12 Oct 12
     
    "Nearly one-fifth of people admit to blocking, unfriending or hiding someone on social media over political postings, according to a recent survey "
  • Mallory Huggins on 19 Oct 12
     
    People seem to be a lot more confrontational when discussing politics online. This article doesn't surprise me at all. On of the comments on the cnn page says this: "We're truly a nation of petulant teenaged adults who can't stand to hear anything but our own opinions trumpeted, and anything that smacks of disagreement, we put our fingers in our ears and sing the "Star Spangled Banner" at the tops of our callow lungs. Good lord, we need to grow up." I agree with it. Whenever people post political statements/articles on facebook they seem to have the expectation that all of their friends will agree with them, and get offended when someone has a different opinion. It's not surprising that confrontations on the internet have led to friendships breaking.
1 - 20 of 274 Next › Last »
Showing 20▼ items per page