Group items tagged

i think blocking it was 50/50, good for the kids that are addicted to changing their status, but bad for people who are on it during free time or lunch.

I agree with Andrew because there are a lot of people that abuse he privilege, but then there are the ones that only get on when told that they can or in free time.

I think that our school system is going way Wacko with this, with Facebook, yeah block it, but you should block it on the school's wifi not the chromes. you should be able to get on at you house. What is the harm there...? Its not like you are getting distracted from a teacher talking..... With the cell phones. Yeah, thats whatever... I understand that you aren't supposed to have them out during class, but only being aloud to have them during lunch and before or after school, it makes me feel like we are back in Jr. High, that was their policy. I even remember i went to work Kirn's show and i forgot that there was that rule and so i was walking down the hallway texting, i looked right at the teacher and said that i was in high school, she laughed and said sorry and gave it back. But i think with this rule the students will feel like that are being treated as jr high students again and i know that would make me frustrated. But not having a relaxed rule on cell phones students will just get super mad and well, teacher's and Administrators,, You're gonna have a bad time...

I agree with Eric, it should just be blocked on the wifi, not the Chromes themselves because now the people who brought their own computers can get on facebook, or the people with internet on their phones can access it that way. So the school didn't block the students %100, they just made an obstacle for the students to get through, because I think we all know someone is going to find a way around it soon, like they did last year.

I agree with Eric and Alex as well, just block it on their wifi during the school day.

It does feel like we are still in Junior High. but how do most Students? certainly not like they are in high school. If people would act their age then you could use this statement. take a look around the hallways and you know what i am talking about. And when you are on facebook or any other website it is a distraction because you are zoned out of everything that is going on around you and ten minutes can easily turn into an hour or a couple of hours

a good 3/4 of the conversations during class periods... maybe not everyone's but at least mine has been about getting around the the Facebook block. They say Facebook is distracting well it is for certain people that get on it constantly but what really is distracting is people constantly talking about how they are trying to get back on Facebook through the chromes. That's not distracting a select few it's distracting us all.

I feel like if the school has such a big problem with Facebook they need to realize that although blocking Facebook from chromes will stop many students from getting on it the majority of us do have smart phones. Meaning we can still get on Facebook. I think that if a student doesn't know how to control their use on facebook during school they will have to deal with the consequences and that it wasn't necessary to block the site, it's called responsibility and if someone doesn't know how to be responsible then that's their problem. Also I don't understand why students aren't able to get on Facebook outside of school?

I don't feel like blocking Facebook was very beneficial. High school is supposed to be preparing us for college or a career, in which we will have access to anything we want. How are we supposed to know how to limit distractions if we don't have the opportunity to do so now? On another note, the students who aren't doing their work now with Facebook unblocked still aren't generally going to do it even without that particular distraction.

I agree with Rainie, Jaidlyn, and Olivia. The school board and the administrators don't know what we are thinking in class, yes they might see that a good portion of our students are on Facebook, but also, a good majority is paying attention and actually learning, I personally find Facebook a good tool for school, because there has been multiple times where I have no clue what so ever on what is going on so I go and ask some of my friends that are in college and ask them, and also my friends explain it so much better than Teacher's do, I feel as though most of the times teacher's just speak it so they can get paid, they don't go in depth to it. So I feel also that if they were teaching more hands on there would be less Facebook usage, well, at least there would be if it was unblocked.

Sorry.. I realized that I didn't finish.. With what Rainie said, that is so true you can't sit through a whole class period with out hearing, "This is peeveing me off!" or "There has to be a way around it, that will be my project this weekend, to figure out what how to get around this dumb thing!"

Personally, if the schools are trying to prepare us for the future, then why limit what we can do, and not do with the chromes? How does limiting us teach us good decision making skills? I mean, in the future, if you are at work and spend 4 hours of your time at work on facebook, you are gonna get fired. We should have it just to learn that we do not need it. Plus, students are just going to move onto the next thing. Like there are not a billion other things we are going to get on?

I completely agree with Payton. There are so many things that aren't blocked and we can move right on to the next thing.

I totally agree with both Eric and Payton, also what about using our phones, Ipods, and personal computers to get on FB at school. An I know most of the people on FB use it to waste time, what about the students using it during free time for good things like making a FB page for a club or a FB event for a soccer game?

I think that the teacher should be able to have the gun but very protected from anybody except themselves. The teachers should always should check them everyday so they know if its still there.

In my opinion teachers with guns is a good idea, although I don't want some teachers thinking that gives them a sense of bigger authority.

It is a good idea for them to have guns, it would help with safety.

I don't agree with the right of just teachers being able to carry a gun if someone takes a 4 hour class to know to take the gun out and use it in the right way, someone that is professionally trained should be hired because nobody knows if a teacher is going to be able to take a life of someone else.

In my opinion, teachers having the right to carry a weapon is okay. For protection and safety purposes, I completely agree. I think it would give us a sense of reassurance, knowing that we would have a fighting chance, if a person(s) with a weapon entered the school.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry a concealed weapon to school, if the case is that the first responders would arrive to the scene too late.

I think that its dangerous that the teachers have guns but in this situation I think its okay. The best thing about this situation is that the students don't know where the guns are and how to access them. Also another reason that the guardian plan is so necessary for this town in Texas is because the response time is so long and I would definatley agree that the teachers should be able to have guns.

I would take the side that I think guns would be an okay idea. I think that before a teacher is handed a gun they should be trained on how to use it. I also think that the guns should be put in a safe, somewhere out of the reach of the children. But on the other hand I believe that their should be an officer in every school, I think this would prevent a lot of violence.

Although it might be risk to have teachers carry guns at school, it could also potentially save lives because they could be the ones to stop a shooting or whatever else may happen in the school. I think that as long as the teachers keep them hidden and everyone is on board, then it should be okay.

I believe that some teachers, who have gun permits and all the legal things, should be able to carry guns. But I think they should be hidden so that students cannot get to them.

After viewing the video and reading the article, I am for the fact that the teachers at this school should be able to have guns because they're in a rural area. It takes the first responder 30 minutes to get to the emergency site. A lot of "bad" can happen in 30 minutes. Although I previously stated I was for the carrying of guns, I also am against because I think that if the teachers are going to be carrying guns, they need to be properly trained. If they're not properly trained, bad things can happen too. So all in all, I am for it if the teachers and school board members receive proper training.

I don't think teachers should have guns, because the gun violence will increase. More kids will think they could start to carry weapons, and most schools already have an officer.

I think teachers should be able to have guns in safes in their class room for safety reasons.

I don't think teachers should have guns because I think gun violence might increase and we already have a cop that has a gun so I don't think it's necessary for all teachers to have them

I think that teachers should be able to have guns. they would be protected and i dont think that them having guns would cause more violence because they would be using it for safety of them and the children at there school so there teaching student to be responsible and how to act it that kind of situation.

I think teachers having guns would be a good idea as long as they keep them put away until needed.

I do not think that teachers should have guns because some teachers get mad easily and we don't know what they would do with them. Also students could be looking through a cabinet and find it and tell other students who might take it and possibly use it against the school.

I think teachers should have guns to protect themselves and others but they should check the gun everyday.

Teachers are teachers and there is other people that should take care of violence and shooting at schools. I wouldn't feel more safe if more people start carrying guns I would feel more threaten. If something should it be more difficult to get a gun in some of the states.

I think that it's a good idea to an extent. There are some teachers who, under the circumstances, probably would be to afraid, or just in shock to act in the situation. Over all though, I think it is a good idea.

Being in a rural town it is easier to approve guns and I beileve is ok, in small towns everybody knoes everybody. Many people "Pass through" small towns where there isnt much authority and public safety in the town but there is in the town miles down the highway. Therefore in rural schools I think it is right to be able to carry guns for the students saftey. In urban areas there is public safety patroling the town on a regular basis, there is police inside schools with guns and weapons to protect studnets and staff. In Urban areas I do not think it should not be allowed for teachers to carry guns inside schools.

I think teachers should be able to carry concealed guns, but I also think they should have background checks to make sure they are good people to have guns. I would feel safer knowing that a good person has a way to protect us.

To Sydney - I agree. I think that it should be an optional thing and if you do carry a gun as a teacher you must take a class/course in order for to be able to permit it in the school building.

I think giving licensed teachers guns in rural areas would be beneficial. It may be simpler to have one or two police officer in the school, but have the teachers have guns would also be okay as long as they were trained with a gun and could handle an intense situation. As some were saying about how students might find the gun, the school would probably have a locked up location for the gun, therefore the students would not be able to access it.

I don't think teachers having guns is a good idea because they aren't trained properly in that area. That's why we have a school cop who should be the first to handle situations like that. I'm sure if something like that happened here there wouldn't be an issue with the amount of time it would take the police to get here.

I agree that teachers should be allowed to have guns, but check on the gun everyday to make sure students don't mess with the gun

I don't think every teacher needs to carry a gun but the district should designates certain teachers to allow them to carry guns. They should also be properly trained and be monitored. In the time it takes police to arrive to a call for a school shooting countless students could already be dead, but with the designated teachers there they could put a stop to the shooter.

bllandon- I agree. I believe that certain courses and classes should be taken in order to be an armed teacher. If i had to trust my life to a teacher in a dire situation like a school shooting, I'd prefer it to be in then hands of a calm under pressure, capable shooter.

I believe that teachers should be allowed to carry concealed weapons but as long as they have some type of professional training. It wouldn't do any use to carry a gun of you can't use it and use it safely. Also the gun should be used as a last resort in an extreme situation. I agree with Emily when she's says some students might try and take it but it should definitely be in a safe place where no one but the teacher would have access to it.

I think it is a good idea. The only concern I have is the teacher viewing him/herself to have more authority over others. The students should not know which teacher carry's a weapon. Though the teacher should have to go through many training courses in order to do so. It's one thing to carry a gun, it's another to kill a person and be in a firefight. Not everyone can handle it.

I Think Teachers should be allowed to Concealed Carry as long as they pass certain requirements, like in the video the administrator says they have to be accurate up to a certain point in order to be able to carry said gun. As well as the do training he mentioned that the teachers have been trained in hostage situations. In my opinion with the correct training and practice it would be a great idea.

I think teachers should not be aloud to carry guns we don't live in a small town in Texas where it would take 30 mins. for people to respond .Plus most school already have a trained officers in their schools we don't need untrained teachers to carry weapons.

In regards to what fwyldes753 said, I believe that teachers shouldn't be able to carry guns because we don't live in a rural area and cops are in a close distance. I wouldn't trust teachers to carry a weapon. We also have a school cop that would respond immediately.

I think schools teachers should be able to have concealed weapons on them as long as they go through a gun safety course and if they are too far away to be able to wait for police.

I think that teachers should be allowed to carry guns, but under very strict circumstances. The gun should be on the teacher at all times (never put in a cabinet or a safe, as kids could more easily find a way to get to it), the teachers should go through gun safety and training (which they apparently do), only teachers with gun permits should be allowed to have them, and they should be completely concealed at all times. Although I think this idea is most likely going to stay in rural schools (they have less students, and are farther away from law enforcement), I could see it traveling into city schools in the future. So yeah, all in all I don't think this is a bad thing at all. It could save a lot of lives in the event of a school shooting.

I think that there intentions are great and in a rural town with not many armed forces around to help it might work. But what if a kid were to get ahold of it? I believe that they'd have to be in a safe where the students don't realize what it is or can't see it. But with that they won't have the whole quick to help plan they are hoping for. It would be faster then the cops getting there though.

I think that if the location of that school is very dangerous then teachers should be able to carry guns but out of sight from students at all times. because if students can see the gun, it would make them too uncomfortable to even learn.

After viewing the video and reading this article, I feel that it is appropriate for staff and board members of a school to carry guns. As for schools located in a area where first responders are able to access the situation more quickly, I don't think it would be as necessary. Although I think school teachers carrying guns is a good idea, I believe that it only makes sense for these teachers to go through the proper training before doing so.

I think that it should be allowed for some teachers in rural areas to carry guns. As long as the guns are kept in a safe place and locked away from the students. I don't think that every teacher needs a gun but because they are in a rural area and it will take longer for police to get they should have someone there who can protect them the moment a situation happens. We have a police officer at our school at all times ready to protect us, why shouldn't they have someone who can protect them. If teachers are allowed to carry guns they should have to go through a class/course before being allowed to have a gun at the school.

I'm not sure about teachers being able to carry guns in school. You have to put into factor how it would be concealed, which teachers have access and or carry it, and things like if the students would think it was okay for them to bring some sort of protection, whatever that may be. I don't think it's a bad idea, I just think people would have to be much more cautious in all senses. The barrier between feeling safe, nervous, or afraid around someone would be different for everyone. Carrying weapons might also deter some of the schools wanted achievements for the future, for example attendance averages.

I understand there rage towards the gun company, but you can't sue them for selling a gun. that's what there job is, that's just what they do. they didn't intentionally sell it to that guy knowing the terrible things he was going to do.

I think the gun makers should not allow that gun to be to sold to the public. Its too powerful. But on the other hand the shooter could just get another gun. I don't think its the gun manufactures fault. People do crazy things, and it just happened to be their gun.

I agree that the gun should not have been sold to a civilian and the maker/seller should be sued for the crime.

They shouldn't sue the maker/seller, it was legal to sell that type of gun at that time. The seller didn't know that Lanza was going to shoot 20 first-graders and 6 teachers.

I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.

This whole massacre just absolutely angers me. I cannot believe that a gun that would be used in the military was used by a young, inexperienced man to kill 20 children and 6 faculty. Yeah, the gun-maker didn't know that Lanza was going to go out and do this, but they could have sold a different gun (a gun that would NOT be used in the military.) I think the victims' families did the right thing by sewing the gun-maker. He killed children and wives/husbands....LOVED ONES. That's not okay.

I agree that it is wrong to sell such a powerful weapon to the general public. Never the less, you still aren''t going to get back some of those guns they have sold. A military issued weapon should not be sold to the general public, it has no good use for the public. But at the same time, I believe there is no reason to sue the company. The company didn't know this was going to happen.

I agree with them with the thinking that such a powerful gun shouldn't be sold to just anyone, a gun like that only has one purpose and it isn't hunting. I don't think its fair to sue the gun company, just because you buy a gun doesn't mean you are going to do what happened on that terrible day.

I think that we should have better background checks before people are sold guns. Also the gunmaker had no idea that Lanza would do something like what he did. The families have a good case because he shouldn't have had the gun at all because it is a very highly powered weapon.

I do believe that such powerful guns should not be allowed to the public, especially for recreational use. I also do believe that before guns are sold to civilians we should issue many different back ground check systems. This is to ensure no gun is more powerful than the ones the law has and no one who is dangerous has a dangerous weapon.

I agree that these guns shouldn't be sold to the public and in fact only used for military purposes. But I do not agree that the maker of the gun should be sued. He just made the gun. He didn't influence the carrier of the gun to do what he did with it. It's like suing a company who makes knives in the same situation. It's all about the user, not the maker.

I think that our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane. We should find different methods to get information from terrorists.

Our country shouldn't use torture to get information because it is inhumane

Torture is never okay to use for any reason. There is other ways to get information from people....

I think that it is time for the Supreme Court to rule on this issue. This is an issue that is important to a minority group that has never really been ruled on by the Supreme Court. I personally want to see how the Court applies the Loving v. Virginia case to one or all of the cases they may hear. I just don't expect anything until after the election in November because it has become an important issue this election cycle. Payton I don't think that the Supreme Court could end same-sex marriage. Marriage licenses are left up to each individual state and I can't imagine any possible outcome that would result in the Supreme Court taking away a State's right to issue a marriage license to whoever they want to grant a license to. I can see them saying there is no right to marry at the federal level or that the Federal Government doesn't have to recognize same-sex marriages but I don't see them telling states that they can't issue a marriage license to a same-sex couple if the state wants to.

Jeremy, what I am saying is that same sex marriage, if ruled against, will have almost no chance of reversing the choice for a very long time. Based upon our constitutional values though, I doubt that they will rule in favor of those that oppose same sex marriage though.

I'm still like . . . trying to figure out why exactly some people hate the idea of gay marriage so much and want to make sure that it's not legal. I mean, even if it's for religious reasons, like their religion doesn't support gays and lesbians, it's not like they would be getting married in their church or that they even want to. It doesn't affect those against gay marriage at all. It really only affects gays and lesbians and it makes them happy.

I think whatever the outcome and effects of the ruling will be a new direction in our lives as Americans. I'm interested in how this will effect us in the future.

http://gaymarriage.procon.org/ I know I got a little confused about why some people think same sex marriage marriage is bad and I found this to be very helpful in understanding it.

I, myself, do not agree with gay marriage, or being gay at all. But that is my personal beliefs. I don't want people to try to tell me that I'm wrong, because I'm not saying I am right. I know this is a big issue in the U.S and it does need to be addressed, but I do think it is more of a state issue. As for gay marriage, it will probably be passed to be legal, and that's fine because it really doesn't affect me, I am straight. But from a conservative viewpoint, here is why some don't agree with gay marriage, not just because of religion. It is because it defeats the whole sacredness marriage was and still is meant to be. To me it is for man and wife. Not man and man or woman and woman. I am not intending to offend anyone at all, if someone wants to be gay, then be gay. I will not discriminate, I just will not support it, because I don't agree with it.

You do realize that times have changed, right? And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights. Honestly, unless you're white, straight, and male, you haven't really gotten rights until sometime in the late 19th /20th century, and for some in the 21st century. Also, how would a homosexual relationship ruin the sacredness of marriage? When you really consider it, marriage isn't all that sacred, especially these days because there's money and materialism involved, and then of course sex too. Of course, sex is okay so long as you're married, but if you're not married and you've had sex, it's considered immoral, according to society. And even though people these days marry for love, those things are still involved in it. And if marriage is sacred, then why are divorces allowed? Aren't sacred things supposed to be protected no matter what? Divorce obviously doesn't protect marriage. It just ends marriages. If marriage was considered sacred then divorces wouldn't be allowed, and divorce is necessary at times.

I think that if a man and a woman hate each other but still have more rights to get married than two homosexuals who actually love each other, then we should definitely legalize it!

Whoa, I never said anything about the roles of men and women, sex or divorce. I was stating my opinion on gay marriage, and I will continue to do so in this comment. Again, not intended to offend anyone, just my take on what I think about gay marriage and being gay in general. Kirstina, you just proved my point for me that being gay isn't right by saying it depends on how people are raised that changes how they will be like when their older. So are the way people are raised now, affecting if they are gay or straight? If someone were told tell me that people are born gay, I would say they are wrong. (I'm bringing this up because that is probably what you and many viewers believe) Here's why, when you're a little kid, you don't think about which gender you like. You think about having friends with whoever and don't even know about how to take friendship further than that, as a child. There is no gene in your body that makes you gay.Plus, no one that says they're gay, knows until they are teens or older. That is because they observe how others are, think about how they are treated by the opposite gender and make their decision. And why are there all of the sudden so many gay people? Why weren't there any back then? Not because it wasn't allowed, because it wasn't not allowed, it was just unheard of. It's (to me) because it isn't natural. It is a life CHOICE that people have made for their OWN reasons. Some for attention, some to fit in, some because they can't find someone of the opposite sex that is interested in them and some for reasons I don't know. People are put on this Earth to make more people, just like animals are here to live, provide for people and make more animals. Two men or two women physically cannot make more people. Man and man and woman and woman are not meant to be together. What is and/or was meant to be can't change. Because whatever is meant to be is just meant to be and you can't change that, no matter what time in history it is. Gay marriage d

Gay marriage does ruin the sacredness of marriage because a married couples are supposed to stay together, reproduce, carry on the human race, and be a happy family. I know, sounds a little far fetched in this modern day, but if America could go back to that, this country would be so much better off. I'm not saying divorces don't happen, or are wrong because my parents are divorces and my mom is remarried and that doesn't make them bad people. But I am saying that they made a mistake somewhere and did, in turn affect the sacredness of marriage. Divorces should not be illegal, but people should think twice before getting married. Also, I'm not trying to squash the dreams of gay couples, or tell anyone that I'm right and their wrong, that is not my intention.

Alex I would just like to point out a few things you may have over looked or may not have known. The first thing is that there aren't "all of the sudden so many gay people?" There have been homosexual and bisexual people throughout history. One example is the first gay couple to be joined by Civil Union in the world, in Denmark, in 1989 and had been in a relationship 40 years prior to their Union. The reason we don't hear much about homosexuality in history is because it used to be a crime that if found guilty of being homosexual you could be put to death or thrown in jail for it (the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has more information on this particular subject). It is reasonable, then, to believe that homosexuals would keep their homosexuality to themselves as to protect themselves from violence. Another thing you seem to overlook is that there are heterosexual couples who "physically cannot make more people," for one reason or another without using alternative methods such as surrogates and/or in vitro fertilization. that still enjoy the benefits and legal aspects (such as inheritance and the right to hospital visits and end of life decisions for their spouse) of marriage. These same options are also available for Same-Sex couples and they have the option to have children that are the biologic child of one of the parents just like families where one of the parents is infertile. Homosexual behaviors have also been observed in natural populations in a large number of other animals have shown homosexual behaviors while observed in their natural habitats and also in unnatural locations such as zoos. So to say that homosexuality is unnatural ignores that these observations have been made in the "natural" world. The finial thing that you brought up was about when people form, or in your words "choose", their sexuality. The American Psychological Association says that a persons sexual orientation can start to form in middle childhood and early adolescence a

Alex . . . you totally missed my point with me saying how people used to be raised. This is what I said: "And there are a lot of things that have changed as times have gone on, like gender roles, for example. It used to be that women were raised to do all the housework and mothering and such because "things were meant to be that way". Meanwhile, men were raised to fight and work on the farms because "things were meant to be that way". Now women, while payed less, are allowed to have jobs and have gotten the right to vote, but even so still have to fight to gain and keep other rights." I was merely giving that as an example of how times have changed and how things have changed. If women and nonwhite races can get rights over time, then why can't homosexual people? That doesn't seem fair. Marriage has now become a legal thing, and even if you don't want to, you have to accept it as it is - a legal thing that's nowhere near sacred. So what's so bad about gays having the the same legal rights to get married and all the legal things that come with it? Also, at dinner tonight, my dad told me that marriage used to be a property thing. Women/wives used to be considered property and not human beings. African Americans became slaves of the American white people, and therefore were also property. Now slavery is illegal, and marriage happens between two people who love each other and are willing/want to be legally bound. Also, therefore marriage has never been sacred. I also agree wholeheartedly with what Jeremy said.

Guys, Alex gave her opinion, she even said in her that is her personal belief, and that she didn't want anyone trying to tell her that she was wrong. She stated her opinion, you don't have to kill her through a website, It is her opinion, lay off.....

Russia is threatening the US with statements saying that they could destroy our navy and air force by jamming all of the signals. In my opinion Trump should take action to make sure that they don't do that because then America would be vulnerable. I'm not saying that we should attack but we should focus on defense right now.

If so, why don't the Russians do it? And now that Russia apparently claimed what they can do, can America compete with this and maybe use the same technology on the Russians?

How credible is this information? If it is credible what is the Government doing about the threat?

Because Russia says they are capable of doing this. There is a possiblity of them expressing it over dramatically. If you look at the technology comparison, the United states is much farther ahead. You don't think we can do the same back at them? We probably can. Just get an EMP.

You cant jam an M16 with an electric bomb.

I was also reading from a few different sources that an ex-Russian official has suggested that Russia military has the ability to use underwater nukes to detonate a "tsunami bomb" off our coasts. This claim has been officially denied by the Putin govt, but interesting to consider weapons like this. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/01/russia-can-launch-tsunami-against-us-nuclear-bombs-buried-ocean/

I'm not quite sure why we're so worried about alleged claims created by Russia. Not only that but the U.S. military as well as U.S. technology like Daniel said is much more advanced. If we really want to know if these allegations are true find out. Otherwise you stay living in fear over whether something is true or not. Take their threat and do something about it if it's a threat that's that high in severity.

I don't think his comment wasn't necessary for him to say

He made this statement in front of a portrait of Andrew Jackson, as stated in the article, who signed the Indian Removal Act. Coincidence?

President Trump's behavior is naturally insensitive and inappropriate. So it doesn't surprise me that he'd make a comment such as that. I do agree that using that word directly insulted their heritage as well as the achievements they've made during the war.

what trump said was mega wrong and it saddens me that he felt the need to throw petty snaps at elizabeth during this night of honoring the navajo code talkers.

I don't think the word itself is insulting but the way it was used made it become that way.

donald did insult the senator because the senator isn't exactly one of his supporters but either way he had no right for insulting her even if she wasn't one of his supporters so in other words he doesn't like the fact that there is a woman indian heritage senator for the united states.

It is a problem that this happened, but the media is "making a mountain out of a mole hill" so to speak.

I think they're trying to make it bigger deal they act like they don't know what type of president the country voted for. Long before he became president he was having issues will racial names and opinions, Being president hasn't changed the situation. You'll just have to put up with it.

It may not have been the word itself that was the root of the problem, but it was the way he used it to try to discredit Warren before, so for him to use it again in this scenario was bad on his part.

trump was in the wrong

His comment wasn't necessary at all, he had no reason to call her that and I think he just dug himself a deeper hole by doing that

I believe it is a racist slur. this isn't the first time President Trump has been racist towards someone. I don't think people realized what kind of person Donald Trump is. He thinks that just because he is president he can say and do whatever he wants, and doesn't care who he hurts or offends.

I think that this should be a big deal because this is just one example of our president being insensitive, and discriminatory. I don't think that these people have a right to say that this slur wasn't offensive, when they aren't native american. A white person can't look at a racial minority group and dictate what is and isnt offensive to that group. If a minority group says something is offensive, its offensive.

I think he was in the wrong for saying that out of petty but others are also making it a bigger deal then it actually is.

I don't understand what president trump wants to do in the future.

Trump's remark was insensitive and childish. He was at this event for the sole purpose of honoring these heroes, but he felt the need to mock Senator Warren. It's not difficult to understand that the name he is using is offensive, especially when he has actual Native people telling him so, yet he continues to behave in this disrespectful manner.

this is why Trump shouldn't be president. He's the worst possible president ever.

I think that Donald Trump needs to be more careful about what he says. He does not need to bring more fights to himself by saying stuff like that, but he shouldn't not defend himself when others bash him. He needs to be more respectful as a President and think before he speaks, because he is representing the United States of America.

I think the media is overreacting

I feel like President Trump shouldn't have even mentioned anything in regards to the natives. He should have just remained on track an honored those Tribal men instead of turning the tables and sounding like he insulted their culture. Plus the media in itself shouldn't have even recorded that, because now WWII is about to happen on the media.

I think that i agree with it being "culturally insensitive" as some could be offended by that, but i don't think I can fully support it being considered a racial slur at this time

This is wrong

As a Native American, I would say it's a nasty generalization. We are not all a stereotype; and I love how he referenced us all to a children's movie that scratches the surface on our culture. It was a disrespectful remark.

He wasn't trying to say it to be racist he was trying to see it to make fun of her but the media of course takes it in a whole different direction

I do believe it was culturally insensitive but it isn't a racial slur.

trump is discriminating against that native of american by using the Pocahontas name as an insult

This is culturally insensitive. He was there to honor those men, not to take a stab at someone he doesn't like.

I think that it is rude to make that comment, but it is not a racial slur

In my personal opinion I feel like what he said was not wrong but I definitely feel the context to the event at which it was said makes it an issue. Poking fun at someone who claims to have Native American ancestry without proof does not seem particularly wrong to me but to do it at an event meant to show respect to code talkers certainly complicates matters.

Personally i feel like this is a step backwards in our relations with North Korea. In Trumps presidency we created peace with North Korea rather than accusing them of a world threat and raising tensions.

I think we need to be careful but North Korea is a terrible place and has a terrible leader who murders his own citizens. We can't be friends with them while their leader is going against American ideals and committing atrocities in his own country.

I believe that North Korea is a threat but not one to the United States. He claimed before that we were within reach of his destruction but that wasn't the case. Kim called Biden ¨a rabid dog¨ so this seems to just be him showing that he doesn't like Biden and would prefer Trump.

I think Kim Jong Un certainly has bad intentions, and he certainly is a threat. However, he's making empty threats because not only is the US military far stronger than North Korea's, but also because if North Korea launched an attack on any country, many other countries would immediately come to their aid and fight against N. Korea

Yes, I think that we did take a step back from where we were with North Kora but honestly, I don´t see them as that much of a threat. I think that America´s army and tec is so ahead of North Kora that we're much more of a threat to them than they are to us. I think that most likely Kim Jong Un will continue to make threats like this but will never act on them. Hopefully, at some point, North Kora will be able to overcome being controlled by a dictator and can be treated fairly.

North Korea is such a terrible place to even live with. We shouldn't try to "mess" with them and cause a bigger problem. This could cause us so much danger. Not only because the President has bad intentions, but also because they have more and bigger weapons than us.

North Korea is a failing nation and really the only reason it doesn't fall as it is is because of china not wanting the influx of refuges fleeing there. When North Korea does all this show of it being a threat it's really not that much of a threat to the US because of the far greater military potential of the US. With Military bases around the world there's not really any way to wage an effective war against the US since they can strike anywhere, and countries know this and they know they couldn't win a war with the US so they will never try and ultimately North Korea will fall in on itself over time anyway.

I wouldn't really call North Korea a major threat but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep an eye on them though. The Government has threatened the United States with an all-out war or a nuclear attack, but with no actual outcome. North Korea is a country that is bark with no bite. Our military arsenal is far superior in every way possible and for any country like North Korea were to attack us it would be their entire government brought down to rubbles. Saddam Hussein found out the hard way in Iraq.

I think that Jill Stein is just having the recount to be able to raise money so that she can donate it to her own campaign if she decides to run in the next election.

I feel like Jill Stein is just using this for farther popularity and to help with her campaign if she ever decided to run for president.

She has a right to do this since this country thrives on our freedom. I don't think she should be suing states just because she wants a recount though. If a state doesn't want to vote again isn't that also in our rights? I don't know what all of Jill Steins motives are and though I disagree with her, she still has the right to ask for a recount however the turnout will be.

Whatever her reasons for fighting for a recount are, she is gaining attention. Whether the recount comes out how she wants it to or not, Stein will have benefited. That being said it's understandable why she feels the need to raise money for it.

Donald Trump denounced the Stein recount effort as "ridiculous" and "a scam." and I disagree with what he said. It is not a scam because she is using the donations for how much the recount will cost.

I agree with Landon, I also think though she will give it to other charity,but use it as popularity.

I believe that Jill Stein has the right to demand a recount and has good intentions for such sudject, but I also belive that when it all follows through, that it will not change anything for the future.

"By continuing to raise money, she is building up a larger donor list that she can later turn to if she runs again." I think that even though she didn't win, it's a good opportunity to help her in other ways. I also think its a good idea because she'll then have a backup if she runs again.

The article said that she would donate all excess donations to election reform systems, weather or not this turns out to be true remains to be seen. Regardless the changes would be considered extremely important by many of today's voters who think that the electoral college ruins democracy and therefore don't vote. If the election recount doesn't result in evidence of fraud or tampering, then the excess money should be put to good use regardless.

I think that jill Stein is gonna earn all this money for the next upcoming election . She is going to donate the money to her election fund.

I agree with Landon as well because I feel like she just wants the attention and to gain the money

I agree with Lauren because she shouldn't be suing states because they don't want to do a recount, it's our choice if we do our not. We picked who we wanted and that's who we got she's just using this for publicity and to help her if she runs again.

Jill Stein has the right to a recount whether shes in it for the money or not, shes someone who can afford and has the power to do so opposed to some citizens who want to have a recount but obviously don't have that kind of money or power. If she does prove the voting ballets wrong after to recount, she will not only have gotten Hillary president, but she is going to increase her popularity for her own benefit in the future. Even if she doesn't achieve her goal she will have gained attention in some sort of way.

I agree with Landon. I also think she is having this recount to get attention.

I agree with Landon and Lauren, she's gaining attention for herself and it's not right for her to try and sue states because they don't want to recount.

Jill Stein is just doing it for more publicity so when or if she runs again in 2020 it will make her look better and be the more popular vote

I agree with Faith, because if she wants to run again, she is already sorta popular, and will have more attention drawn to her than she does now, ans she may be a candidate with the media partially on her side.

I think Jill Stein is just using this to raise money for herself and her party and once they get enough, they'll drop the whole thing and use the money for other reasons. Her reasons for a recount are idiotic and it will prove that Donald Trump won the election fair and square.

This is pretty cool. Even if the end result does not chance the ability to call for a recount is cool to me, it allows for total certainty in the voting process and gives Jill stein a potential platform for the next election. Assuming she runs as a third party all the publicity she can gain to validate a 3rd party is a positive.

I think Jill Stein is just doing this to get people to notice her.

I understand why she is doing it however it is a choice and could what she is doing reflect her reaction to who won? her intentions may be more to change who won rather than seeing if the votes are justified

Jill Stein has the right to call for a recount if she wants to. People amuse too quickly that she is only in it for her self. And yes, while doing so will give her some sort of an advantage in one way or another, she is doing this to show once and for all who won the election. If this happens, it could change who are president will be.

delanie hi and i agree

I think that the election is over and Jill Stein should just leave it alone.

This is not even worth it, because Trump won fair. Jill is just like Hillary. Sure she has the right to do so, but its not going to do anything Trump won deal with it america!.

I don't know anything about this election, but I think that if she wants to keep doing this more power to her, I don't think that it will change anything. I partly think she is doing this for attention and to get herself known so that she may be able to move up in her career eventually, but I think she knows that the recount won't matter.

I think it is pointless to even try and it won't change the outcome.

She has the right to do this but I think the election is over and it wouldn't change anything

I agree that Jill has the right to call for a recount. I really hope that in doing that she is using her power for good, and standing up for what she believes in rather than to get attention. If she's fighting for what she believes in, then you go girl!

I think that she is raising money for her own benefit, because even if she gets enough for a recount it wont change anything.

Or maybe instead they should just not drive. if smoking marijuana impairs you to the point to where your incapable of driving then don't drive, its not the governments responsibility to provide transportation to someone who chooses that as a medicine. and yeah the hospital gave it to her, but the hospital gives people a lot of other drugs that have warning labels stating not to drive and use heavy machinery. so why should the government have to provide transportation when people know that using that medicine might not allow them to be able to drive?

Why Shouldn't they? there handing it out? Right? So if the government made the decision to give out marijuana to those who would like to have because of health problems then they should take Responsibility for the people there giving it to . Plus people wouldn't listen any ways, people drive under the influence all the time. No matter what its going to happen, that's why I think that the government should keep tabs on people who have medical drugs and make sure there safe, and make sure there not hurting someone else.

if people wouldn't listen, then there is no point for the government to pay to transport someone around who would just abuse it in the first place. and keeping tabs on all of the people who use medical marijuana or any drug that could impair you would take a ridiculous amount of time and money that our government probably isn't willing to do. if someone wants or needs that medical drug then they should be responsible for their actions while using it not the government.

Then why make a laws and expect people to follow this one. It's pretty evident that nobody listen's anyways. So enforcing the law by keeping tabs might save people's lives and save them from injury? So how would that be a waste of time? And yes the thought is unrealistic but, I was just throwing out an idea.

i think its ok to be given the drug for a medical problem and to be able to drive, but if its worse then being drunk and then driving afterwards then you shouldn't be able to drive and be under an influence of a medical use of drugs. they should have special ways of transportation.

I believe it's impossible to be too dough'd to drive!

I think that yes government should provide the transportation if your under medication that you should not be driving or using heavy machinery. Then there is also the thought of who is to say that some one won't just get high and say its hospital medication? It will always be a battle no matter what happens. you could have the government provide the transportation but the only way you can use it is by providing proof by like wearing a I.d. bracelet or having to keep the container with you. Then there are still ways that people will get around like taking other peoples bracelets or containers or them expiring. So there is almost no way to decide and make it possible! Not everyone is going to follow the laws or ever will!

i dont think it really matters wether they make it legal or not, people will still abuse it just like alcohol. they can set an age limit on it, but you still see 9 yearolds getting their hands on cigaretts even though ur supposed to be 18. and as far as transportation goes, i dont believe the government will provide transportation. if you choose to smoke pot, then its ur problem wether to drive or not. i dont think its a big deal if you smoke a bowl or two and then drive to the store, but can the police actualy tell or test you for thc? argue all you want i say let people be free and smoke whatever plant they want wether its tobacco or marijuana, its a natural god given plant.

There's no reason that the government should use the money, that we don't have, to provide transportation to someone who doesn't need it. Does she need marijuana? Clearly, she may however, that does not constitute the necessity to have someone pay for her to get around. Maybe, she should try taking the bus.

Studying Government in the textbook is fine to get the basic ideas, but to really understand what is happening around us takes more work. Use this forum to share interesting content that you find. I ask that we try and keep our links related to government topics and stay within the code of conduct.

I think they are rising more because people are getting used to covid now and kind of got less strict about the rules and are taking less precautions.

I believe that the number of cases is rising once again because the weather is getting colder, and viruses thrive in colder weather. I also think it's because people are starting to get used to covid as well and are getting too reckless.

No to mention its flu season so it's almost impossible to know if it's one or the other. It's also been said if you have the flu, but think it's covid and go to get a covid test, it could come out positive even though it's just the flu. Also, it's been proven that the covid test is only 90% or so effective and you can have a false test.

I agree with Abby I think that people are getting sick of having to deal with covid and just want it to be over. I think that this winter we will see a decrease in the number of other viruses and colds like the flu because we are wearing masks.

I agree with "xxchrysxx" I have also read about what you've mentioned. It makes you wonder how valid Covid-19 really is.

Going off of what Abby said, I also agree. I've seen many people walking without masks and not social distancing outside, and I think that's one of the main reasons the numbers are going to keep rising.

I think that because of the cold weather and flu season around the corner, the number will start to rise again.

People are not taking it as seriously as they should and not following guidelines that were put in place to protect us.

I think people haven't been taking COVID 19 seriously, and since it is getting colder and colder it will be harder to contain it.

People started loosening the rules and safety regulations lately, plus this is flue season and cold season so I guess its corona season too

I think people as time is going on are not taking it as seriously anymore. People are going out not always wearing masks or sanitizing or following the rules as they should.

I think that people are kind of forgetting that covid is a serious thing and aren't being as cautious as they were in the beginning. Flu and cold season is also coming and I feel like it will then be hard to tell who has covid or if it is just allergies/ flu.

I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before. They are going out in large groups of people, hanging around lots of people and not wearing a mask like they should.

I think people aren't being as serious with covid as they were before and people aren't wearing mask or didn't wear mask correctly.

I believe the numbers are rising again because people have become too comfortable. Covid arrived in the united states around January 20-22 of 202. Covid will have been around for 9 months or so now. That is almost a year that many lucky people have gotten to live through. People are just now assuming that, since they haven't gotten it yet they can be lax about the new protocols.

I think the cases are starting to rise again because states peeled back their lockdown measures and the cases began to rise

I think it is because it is not being taken seriously enough and the lockdown measures are being repealed.

I think that people know how serious this is they just don't care because they want it to be over. Also we should have done a better job with the lockdowns measures.

I think cases are starting to rise because people aren't taking it as serious as they were.

I think cases are starting to rise again because people are tired of the pandemic and aren't taking as much responsibility as they should. I think also social media influencers like TikTok stars and Kylie Jenner having major parties and posting on social media are influencing people to disregard the seriousness of the pandemic.

I think the numbers are rising because people are not being safe and as we get closer to the holidays they have parties and gathers which is where it is probably spreading.

I think that numbers are going to continue to rise dramatically because of the holidays, and people not taking it serious anymore.

I think that people have become complacent and aren't taking the proper precautions anymore, meaning that the numbers are going to steadily rise, especially around the holidays.

I believe the reason why the number of cases is going up so much is that it seems a lot of people forgot that we are still in a pandemic and go out and run around with big groups of people.

I feel since we're so far in the pandemic that people stopped and are not taking it as seriously. that the cases are rising and people are becoming lazy on masks and sanitary needs

I think it's because we have stopped taking covid seriously, we still have parties and only wear masks when we are required to wear them if it was up to us we wouldn't and I know because I go to parties and no one including me wears masks, not proud of it but it's true, no one takes it seriously unless they're affected by it.

i think that it is mainly due the the change in weather. viruses thrive in colder weather. personally i hate wearing a mask and i know a lot of people do too. if you haven't been effected by it, we brush it off because it doesn't pertain to us

cuz people still dont want to wear a mask for sum reason.

I believe it is because it was made political to wear a mask which is simply just embarrassing for America. People now are wearing masks, but for example in our own state Covid-Kim didn't do anything about the virus and didn't make masks mandatory.

Viruses thrive in cold weather, it is colder outside so more people will be inside together, and nobody likes to wear a mask

I feel that covid will rise again due to, yes cold weather but also covid has been going on for over a year and people are tired of it and what to go back to their 'normal' lives when we cant yet because it is still around. people want to get back to there old life so they could be taking off the masks to make themselves feel better but it could bring harm to others.

I think a lot of this has to do with people not taking it as seriously as they did in the beginning because either they personally haven't been affected or they got it and it wasn't that bad. A lot of the governors are also putting out restrictions but the second we begin to decrease the spread or see a drop in covid cases they then lift these restrictions which then causes our cases to rise again.

At the start of COVID, everyone was so much more worried about it. The US immediately went into lockdown, schools closed, and the whole country became a ghost town. Once the CDC released more info to the public about this new virus, however, people stopped worrying as much as they should've been. It flipped from 3 cases and mass hysteria to 25M cases and a more lax attitude. Everyone is tired of this, it's been a year and nothing feels right anymore, so as a society we want to rush into the afterparty and return to our normal lives. But as it's the winter months and COVID hasn't gone away yet, now is especially not the time to ignore the virus. Overall, the cases are still rising because we are letting it happen.

Considering the United States has the highest number of COVID-19 cases on the globe, there should be more light towards getting this over and working towards not having to deal with it at all. Like New York, the entire United States, like other countries, should have done a national lockdown which would have definitely stopped the spread of the cases if fewer people were going out and about. Working towards staying at home and being more cautious will help in the long run.

Well, this is a bit outdated, and I'd like to know what the statistics are now. However, since the U.S. economy was dropping, I don't think they had much of a choice but to drop the quarantine. Plus, there is a lot of people who aren't educated about the effects of covid, and what it could do to people who have weak immune systems.

I believe it is just because people are getting too careless about Covid and won't wear a mask or social distance.

I believe the number is rising up again because people aren't wearing masks, people aren't social distancing and people aren't following the rules and then so they get covid and then pass it on to others.

I definitely agree with the article because by sending hundreds of thousands of kids back to school and in small hallways and classrooms it was destined to increase the spread even with masks. Tables, door knobs, and rails are hard to keep sanitized consistently. It also says that the ages of 18-22 Covid cases increased by 55% nationally.

I really like this article. I found it true and very knowledgeable. But some of the content, i found absolutely absurd. The fact that we can't take pictures in Court houses and places like that makes me think that the Government is hiding something from us that we aren't aloud to see. My opinion on that is as an American Citizen, they shouldn't be keeping secrets from us. They should tell us the truth whether it is good or bad. We have a right to know. But the whole Trespassing thing is just wow too because what if there is a place that is not clearly marked off.? You can get in so much trouble with out even knowing.

this issue has come up recently in some cities passing laws against recording police specifically. I thought some of the comments on the original article were thought provoking as well.

I agree with Eric I think the Government should let the public take pictures in those government buildings because we as people pay for those government buildings and I just think that's fair. I do also understand the law because somethings need to be private.

I don't want to call anyone out or attack someones beliefs, but I believe that the government needs to keep secrets. If we release every detail, there would be major national security implications to deal with. While some secrets are ludicrous, sometimes a secret is better off not being shared.

But if they shared everything with us, maybe we wouldn't be in such a crisis. Like if they told us where the heck all of our money is going... I just think it is completely absurd that they keep secrets from us.. this is supposed to be the land of they free. is it really free if they aren't telling us information that we want to know? I think not.

I feel like there should be more regulation and rules but we should not go on full lockdown because it could cause many businesses to crash and close down.

even though many feel as though we should go into full lock down, I don't think it would be the best idea. especially because we had tried it in the beginning and people were still wandering around and two, we can't keep digging a hole for the economy

I think if we go into a full lockdown, our economy won't be in the best place for the country and I don't think we are mentally strong enough to deal with a full lockdown.

This is why I believe that stimulus checks are necessary. Yes, many Americans would be left without an income if a lockdown was put in place, but that's why a stimulus check would be helpful. Money provided to those who need it during a lockdown would ultimately help enforce a lockdown long enough to see Covid-19 numbers go down.

I believe that if we go into a lockdown, our economy wouldn't be the same anymore and would get worst over time.

I think that if we go into full lock down, people will freak out even more than they already are. Everyone would stock up on everything and we all know how that went with the toilet paper last time we tried to be on lock down.

We absolutely need to go into full lock-down. Concerns about the economy, in my opinion, are entirely bunk. It's saying that it's okay for people to risk their lives unnecessarily so that a line can go up on a graph. I'd hope people have learned something, and would know that they don't need to hyperstock on certain things.

I think if we would have just gone on a nationwide full lockdown for 2 or 3 weeks at the beginning of this, we would be much better off. I think it would be a good idea, but with how far the pandemic has progressed, I'm not sure it would help as much as it would have a long time ago.

It could have been better if we did something right away when Covid first started and not waited to do something. We could probably have stopped it from being so dangerous,

In my opinion a nation wide lock-down will not do anything but harm. There are still millions of Americans that have not been able to recover form the first wave of lock-down, as stated in the story up above. And i know that a huge counter argument is that the government can just pay us more during a lock-down. While that is true that would put us further and further into debt that we are struggling to get out of. A Lot of it comes down to the people, by that i mean that people have to take others into consideration, wearing a mask, social distance. That way Americans can still go to work and provide for their family's without the help of the government.

I agree with you Zoe, but in order for that to work, every country would have had to do a lockdown. and sadly we didn't know the severity back then so people still had an excuse to be ignorant.

I believe a full lockdown is necessary if people ever want to go back to living their lives as "normal" again. There are plenty of other countries living covid free as they did a strict lockdown in the beginning, as we should have done. A few weeks of a strict lockdown isn't going to kill us just as it didn't kill anyone in the other countries where strict lockdowns occurred.

I feel like another lockdown would help if not eliminate the virus but like last time not everyone cooperated and if history shows that it won't be worth locking down again then there's not really a point. Another impact of locking down like some comments and brought up is the economy getting severely worse than it already is. In a perfect fantasy land bills would freeze, everyone would get stimulus checks that wouldn't run out and the virus would go away but that is all super unlikely if another lockdown occurs.

while we cant go on a full lockdown, there needs to be tighter restrictions on people, or heavier responses to keep infections down

I think that going into lockdown or some kind of restriction would help slow the spread of the virus, but not stop it. People would not cooperate to stop the spread of the virus completely. Other countries that had strict Covid restrictions are doing much better than the United States, and some have even eliminated covid completely. If the US could do that it might work, but the economy would still get worse during the lockdown.

If the outbreak is getting worse I think that we should do some sort of lock down. Maybe some restriction so that less people are in large groups so that we can control the virus.

Since we can't go into a full lockdown I think they should make the restrictions more known if people aren't wearing a mask in public I think they should be fined but, I think the amount of money should be high so people will think twice.

I'm not real sure on what to do in this siutation. If we shut down our country, our economy will go down. If wes stay open, more covid cases. I dont know which one is worse.

I don't think the US can handle another lockdown. The economy tanked the first time and I cant imagine how bad it'll get if we lockdown again

we should not lock down again it will hurt the economy

I think we should have more restrictions but I don't think we should go into full lockdown or else people will lose jobs and businesses

I feel like we haven't been on a full lock down, in some states they are more serious about COVID, in others there's not even a mask mandate.

I thinnk people dont realize how big corona is in the US because of ignorance, lack of respect and decency, and or just they don't know. If we need to lock down, we need to lockdown. No uts no butts no coconuts. Fighting this is what got us here in the first place. We could be like other countries where they have respect for each other and themselves, and corona is almost gone or very low.

There are definitely a lot of things to consider, like our economy, if we were to go into lock down. I just don't thing it's possible right now but we should still have restrictions.

I feel like we should but are not able to go on another lock down

No we should not go on lockdown again because no matter how much we do that it will slow it down but it wont stop it and it also will just go right back up one the lockdown is over.

things are starting to calm down more than before and were just learning to live with it as we do any other virus. With the vaccine now people are going to feel safer and hopefully, it actually will be saving lives. If it gets worse a shutdown may be the best option, but right now learning to live with it is the better option.

I think we could go on lockdown again but there is no point anymore because we should of done that right away when it first started and people are getting the vaccines already so it doesn't really matter if we do or don't.

I don't think we need a full-scale hardcore lockdown, we do need tighter enforcement of mandates and stricter punishments for not following public safety, I get people don't want to, but that one person who didn't wear their mask could end up getting your loved ones sick, if everyone just followed guidelines we would get out of this funk sooner

The country is divided over the false binary of financial and health security. Reopening is not enough to ensure economic prosperity, but setting a lockdown is also not enough to contain the virus and prevent needless death.

Another lock down would just cause more discomfort and an economic fall. With people not being able to work it would be very difficult to keep the economy great and balanced. If another lock down was to occur more people would be bothered because they just want to go back to normal life.

I personally don't think we need to go on full lockdown again especially since the new covid vaccine. i think that it's okay to lift some rules and regulations on public places, but we still need to wear masks and stay safe until the pandemic is completely over

I don't think we should go into another full lockdown with closing down non-essential stores because too many businesses had to shutdown or almost had to after the first lockdown.

I don't think we should have to lock down again, we're in the process of releasing the vaccine, and less people are dying

I don't think we should go back t=into another lockdown because I don't think our economy will do very good and I think some peoples mental health won't be in the best place if we do another lockdown

If we went into a lockdown our economy would suffer tremendously and there is no point. If we go into lockdown then I don't really see the point of all of the vaccinations and all of the other mandates we have.

Having another lock down would just put the United States into a far worse situation. More people would lose jobs, more people would go into debt, and our economic status would fall tremendously. I agree with luke in the fact that going into lockdown would just make the vaccine pointless because nobody would be going out anymore.

no we will lose alot of money

I dont think we should go into lockdown because if we expose our bodies to the virus steadily and take vitamins and antibodies our immune system will be stronger and get closer to fighting off the virus.

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

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

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

i think everybody should wear mask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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