Skip to main content

Home/ Government Diigo/ Group items tagged bad

Rss Feed Group items tagged

mavalos442

Is Trump's illness a coronavirus wake up call for Americans? | AllSides - 9 views

  •  
    Trump did not take this virus seriously, he wasn't strict over safety precautions. Now that he has it he expects people to stand with him.
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    I think that Trump is going to be okay and the election should go as planned
  •  
    I think the election would be very difficult without the candidates not feeling well, but I think Trump will be fine.
  •  
    I think the election should still go on as planned maybe some more safety precautions. I think Trump will be fine.
  •  
    Donald Trump didn't take the virus seriously, got sick, and is now back to healthy. This isn't a wakeup call because he recovered fast and never appeared to be in bad shape.
  •  
    He never appeared to be in bad shape which led many to believe it was a hoax or that hospitals are hiding something. He did not take it seriously and Americans will not take it seriously either if he doesn't step up first.
  •  
    Trump never seemed to be in any bad shape and because of this, it is not really a wake-up call. He was not strict on safety precautions and did not wear a mask all the time.
  •  
    Trump should have been more serious about the virus and should have taken some more precaution. he could have been better about wearing a mask and his safety more too.
Bryan Pregon

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

  •  
    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...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    I feel like its normal all its going to do is up the price to everything making no change besides the price to things
  •  
    This can have many outcomes but personally, I think it will cause inflation and nothing will change other than the price of items
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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
  •  
    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
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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 $15 minimum wage there.
  •  
    It's not just important for the minimum wage to rise, it's a necessity. In fact, 15$ 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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
  •  
    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.
Jeremy Vogel

Nov. 7 Nightmares: When Voting Goes Bad - 0 views

  •  
    "As Americans count the hours until the election is over, thousands of lawyers for the Obama and Romney campaigns are preparing for the possibility that the counting of votes will stretch well beyond Tuesday night." A look at how broken America's voting system is.
  •  
    This article just reminds me how much we need to overhaul our presidential election system. It's sort of sad, really.
Melissa Diaz-Aguilera

2-STATE CHILD CUSTODY BATTLE REACHES SUPREME COURT - 0 views

  •  
    Interesting issue. Biological father suing for visitation rights for baby he relinquished custody over when he and girlfriend put the infant up for adoption. I am curious to know what you think should happen.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I think that the adoptive parents should be able to keep the child because I agree with the adoptive father they should not be able to use the tribe law when the child was given up for adoption even after the child was born so she was never taken away from the tribe.
  •  
    I think that her Biological father should actually get a chance to raise his daughter but It's interesting since in today's day and age there are some parents that give away there babies but then they realize they shouldn't have since they would have been able to take care of themselves and the baby, In some cases when the children are returned to there biological parents instead of there adopted parents it can actually be healthier and better for them.
  •  
    I feel bad for both sides of this issue and most of all the child in which it involves. Although I believe that the child should be in custody of their biological father.
  •  
    These situations are always sad in my opinion. I really feel bad for the biological father but I don't think he should get custody of his daughter. He signed away his custodial rights for whatever reason and he shouldn't, in my opinion, be able to back track on that after his daughter was adopted by another couple. The adoptive couple raised her for two years and they formed a bond and loving relationship which would be unfair to both the couple and the little girl to take away because the father decided to "take back" his custodial rights after giving them up.
Cara Ireland

5-year-old Kentucky boy fatally shoots 2-year-old sister - 3 views

  •  
    (CNN) -- A Kentucky mother stepped outside of her home just for a few minutes, but it was long enough for her 5-year-old son to accidentally shoot his 2-year-old sister with the .22-caliber rifle he got for his birthday, state officials said.
  • ...18 more comments...
  •  
    Im stuck on why the 5 year old got a gun and was able to get to it easily
  •  
    why would you even have guns in your house to where a little kid could be able to get a hold of the gun and shoot his little sister.
  •  
    The mother should be the one being punished for this accident.
  •  
    Who leaves a gun out in the direct access of children?
  •  
    I agree that this was an accident but the article also says the 5 year old boy was playing with it. 5 year old's are smart enough to know/ be taught not to play with guns. They obviously didn't know enough to keep a gun out of a 5 year old's reach.
  •  
    why whould a gun be out any way let alone in reach of a child....
  •  
    If you give a 5 year old child a gun for his birthday and leave it in reach for him to get a hold of it, it is the parents fault that this happened.
  •  
    Why would you give your 5-year old son a .22-caliber rifle for his birthday? That is asking for trouble. The mother should be blamed for the incident. You should never leave your kids unattended, not even for a minute, when they are that little. Let alone, never leave a child unattended when there is a gun in the house and it is loaded?!?!
  •  
    I've had guns since a young age and I always knew not use them on people no excuse
  •  
    Why does a 5 year old have a rifle in the first? I do agree with Victoria, that the mother should be punished.
  •  
    what kind of person leaves a 5 year olds gun loaded
  •  
    I think think it was an accident, but the mother should be held responsible for being the one who gave the little boy a gun. I don't think young kids should be allowed to have any kinds of weapons at a young age. I mean I know they may be old enough to understand that it's bad, but how many 5 year old kids do you know that will actually listen and do stuff theyre not supposed to. I think it's fine to own a gun if you want to, but not for kids and they need to be under lock and key.
  •  
    if the gun had child safety on it why was it easy for it to go off? and why was it easy for the child to reach?
  •  
    Its the mother's fault, I've had guns around my whole life, I was taught how to use them, and that I shouldn't touch them unless my parents were there. They shouldn't have had the gun out in the open. Multiple Mistakes.
  •  
    I agree with Rachel. Guns should never be out in the open, whether or not there are kids in the house.
  •  
    i just think its crazy that a 5 year old would get a .22 cal for his birthday
  •  
    Who gives their kid a loaded gun or has one around where they could get to it.
  •  
    This is crazy! Who would give a gun to a five year old for his birthday ! That is just bad parenting.
  •  
    who in the world gives a five year old a .22 caliber for his birthday!?
  •  
    Who would give there child a gun for their 5th birthday? Thats not ok
Bryan Pregon

Council Bluffs Schools blocking Facebook - 3 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 04 Oct 12 - No Cached
  •  
    I am curious if you agree or disagree with the decision. Here are excerpts from three documents the school district has sent me about the decision.
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    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?
  •  
    In response to Payton W: If an employee would get fired for wasting company time on Facebook, what is a logical penalty for teachers/administrators to administer to those who refuse to work? It is hardly a solution to take the computer away, since there is so much effort placed on getting kids to use them for class work. Of course we cannot "fire" our students like an employee. Following your logic, shouldn't "moving on to the next thing" also get you the same penalty? Isn't the real issue students wasting time (whatever it might be)?
  •  
    Mr. Pregon, the personal issue with this is, we can't go around blocking things all the time, that does not teach good choice-making skills. I know that one solution, that may only work in some situations, is that, make them do it by hand. I've seen teachers use this before, and noticed quiet a bit improvement on students taking it upon themselves to avoid facebook. Mr. Nelson, in Algebra 2 made someone solve a 3 variable question using Matrices by hand, which can take about 10 minutes for a single problem. That student has not been on facebook in his class, or at least caught, since. As for penalties, students do have privileged that teachers may take away, such as going to the bathroom during class. Although, that is unlikely to affect most students, it is hard to say whether or not that will have much affect. Perhaps a major punishment such as Monday school if caught so many times? I have no direct answer as to how this should work though.
Bryan Pregon

Ohio's 'heartbeat' abortion bill awaits Gov. Kasich's signature - CNNPolitics.com - 11 views

  •  
    "Ohio state lawmakers have passed a controversial "Heartbeat Bill" that would ban abortions from the moment the heartbeat of a fetus can be detected -- which usually occurs about six weeks into a pregnancy."
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    There have two different attempts at this in Arkansas and North Dakota, were found unconstitutional in court when they tried to make it a law. It hasn't been said if the 'heartbeat' abortion bill will apply to victim's of rape or in the case of incest. There are too many variables involved to make a clear cut decision.
  •  
    I feel like this bill will cause women to do abortions illegally and go back to old methods. In one of the paragraph it said they wont do abortions even if its rape or incest. it gives me a little hope that he said he is pro-life when it come to rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
  •  
    I think that if someone was raped they should be able to have an abortion because that could affect their life in a lot of bad ways if they had a baby from someone that raped them.
  •  
    I can see both the pros and cons of this bill. I hate the thought of ending a life before it has barely begun, but if a woman had the reason of abortion because she was a rape victim 6 weeks might not be a long enough time to reveal that she is pregnant. Women are scarred from these experiences and by telling her she has to keep proof of the memory may be worse than abortion. A new life is suppose to be celebrated not forced into someone's body. I don't like abortion, but I can see why some women would.
  •  
    Everything that Macy said, I agree with. I don't agree with abortion but the reasoning behind it of rape makes sense and is an exception. Keeping something that'll remind the mother is torturing herself, again celebration not force.
  •  
    I agree with Macy. I also think that abortion is a bad thing and you shouldn't be able to end someones life just because you weren't responsible enough, but what if someone was rapped and had to live with that because they didn't realize they were pregnant until after 20 something weeks. I think it's unfair in those situations.
  •  
    I agree with everything Macy said. 6 weeks may not be enough time to fine out you're pregnant. If it was rape women should be able to abort the child. No woman should have to have a that mans baby. Would scar her for life.
  •  
    I think that having an abortion is your choice so you should be able to make it. If you are raped you should be allowed to get an abortion because having the kid would make you remember getting rapped and people don't want to remember things like that.
  •  
    I would say it should be the state's choice if it's majority agrees and votes on it then I believe that it should be passed. My own opinion out of it, I think that 6 weeks is far enough time to make the choice, with other things that you can do.
Bryan Pregon

Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers soared in Washington since pot was legalized -... - 18 views

  •  
    "Fatal accidents involving stoned drivers have soared in the state of Washington since marijuana was legalized there, according to a study from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. But it's difficult to determine whether a high-on-pot driver is too impaired to drive, according to a separate study from the same group."
  • ...11 more comments...
  •  
    I believe that this is null and void, just because someone has the drug in their system at the time of driving does not mean that it was the reason for their impairment.
  •  
    Fatal accidents involving the use of marijuana have risen ever since it was legalized. Sparking the debate, which is worse? Driving drunk or stoned? This is a hard thing to prove which one is worse, so the answer is unclear. Either way just because the drug is legal does not mean you are totally safe to be operating a vehicle.
  •  
    I think that they should try and invent things to help test and see if it impairs their judgment.
  •  
    If it is harder to tell whether marijuana has something to do with impairment or no then they need to do more studies on it. Once they have done more studies and figured out what effects marijuana have then they can decide on laws or regulations that they need to have.
  •  
    I believe that it could have happened if they weren't using the drug
  •  
    But coming up with a test to get impaired drivers off the road will be far more difficult than the blood alcohol tests used to test for drunk drivers, according to the group. While tests show the ability to drive gets worse as blood alcohol rises, laboratory studies show the same is not necessarily true with increased levels of THC,
  •  
    If they are going to legalize marijuana they should come up with a test like a breathalyzer test so they can actually tell if the incidents were the cause of being stoned.
  •  
    I think it is a possibility that people who are stoned are at an increased risk of crashing their car. The article said, "One driver with high levels of THC might not be impaired, while another driver with very low levels can be impaired." I think that researches should base regulations off of the people that are impaired by low levels. They should also look at how levels of THC decrease over time to see how long it would take to get down to the lowest level that would affect people.
  •  
    I believe more research needs to be done. Like alcohol, there should be limits and rules with the marijuana. Because it is a drug, there should be a law about driving because it impairs your thinking just like alcohol.
  •  
    I think that in order to decide what they are going to use to test the amount, more research needs to be conducted on how marijuana affects the brain. It seems to be proven that marijuana can have a negative affect on driving and can impair people who are using it and I think that's reason enough to do more research. I also think that before a state legalizes marijuana they need to find solutions to all of the precautionaries, such as driving, first.
  •  
    There is currently no way of testing if someone was "high" at the time of an accident and having THC in your system at the time of the accident means nothing, you could have smoked a week or even a month prior to the accident and had it in your system! I think they should keep doing studies and try and come up with a way of telling just like they have for alcohol testing for drunk driving but "All this report really shows is that more people in Washington State are likely consuming cannabis, and thus might have some THC in their systems at the time of an accident. But since having THC in your system tells us nothing about your potential impairment, it would be like a report showing how many people involved in accidents had drunk a beer in the last week" is all that needs to be said
  •  
    there is a way but its not like a brethalizer or anything like that for alcohol and other stuff.they can give u a piss test and it will tell weather u are on weed,pills and a bunch of other stuff so there is a way but i dont think that they think about it at the time.
  •  
    I think they need to do at least 10 to 20 years of research to confidently say marijuana is bad and causes this to happen so it should be illegal or its not so bad and can stay legal. I think its highly likely the deaths will go up for stoned driving for the first couple years then go down.
Kenzie Pike

No Warning, Sirens As Tornado Hits Iowa Town - 6 views

  •  
    The police chief of Creston, Iowa said tornado sirens didn't sound before a twister swept through town Saturday evening, damaging a hospital and community college. Chief Paul Ver Meer said there was no warning before the tornado hit around 7 p.m. "The spotters did not see it.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    i thinks its bad that the sirens didn't go off. i think they could have learn from this experience of the sirens not going off. maybe next time they will go off.
  •  
    i think it is horrible what some people have to face. i think that communities should find some different ways that will send out warnings so everyone will have an idea when bad storms are near.
  •  
    That's horrid that there were no sirens, how else would people know ahead of time?
Brice Johnson

Obama approval rating back to 50% mark - 6 views

  •  
    i love obama
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    Caleb, you know nothing of politics..... read a book.
  •  
    I think should get someone else in office instead of Obama because he hasn't been doing so well.
  •  
    Yes, Obama hasn't been the best, but he has done a much better job than Bush. Let us not forget that Bush is the one who set us into debt and left Obama on a sliding slope. He has actually made our decrease much better then how Bush left us and he has created a lot of new jobs. An example: Bush's reign is a car. He made this car junky and it barely runs and is steadily getting worse. Obama is then sold the car and he starts to make repairs, but the car keeps breaking and having other parts go bad because of the state it was left in. Obama is doing everything that he can to make this car good again. It's also frustrating that everyone is so against what Obama is doing. I mean if you think he's doing such a bad job, do you think you could do it better? What could you do differently compared to what Obama is doing? This takes time to get out of debt. It's not like you can just snap your fingers and make the debt go away. So, maybe we should think before we just hate our President because everything's not perfect. Perhaps we should think before we just bash on someone.
  •  
    Obama is in the 98th percentile for his NCAA bracket. Little fun fact for you guys.
Bryan Pregon

If Alcohol Were Discovered Today, Would it be Legal? | Alternet - 1 views

  •  
    Interesting article out of Great Britain... especially considering all our laws on "drugs", are we forgetting that alcohol is a drug as well. For many, it is socially acceptable to get "drunk" while getting "high" is bad. Do you think if alcohol were discovered today, would we allow people to use it legally?
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    We probably wouldn't, and go back into the prohibition days. With all the stats they have between drunk driving and abuse, the government wouldn't think twice
  •  
    Well look from olden days, if we knew all deaths of drunk driving or stupid stuff people do, it never would have gotten relegalized. This is in my opinion
  •  
    i think that it would be illegal because of all of the stats they have form drunk driving, domestic abuses, child protection cases, and accidents.
  •  
    I really doubt that we would be able to limit it legally to the point of no use. I do think we would better restrict it though. It would likely turn into something like limiting a persons legal purchase amount in a week or a month or something, with some sort of item that would be required to purchase alcohol that one could only receive so many of in a month period.
  •  
    they tried to stop it with prohibiton when they first discovered it. but that only brought on moonshiners and illegal saloons (i can't think of the name right now) and now it would be almost impossible to make alcohol illegal. It would most likely turn into something like a huge illegal operation like a cartel or something worse.
theresa schwenk

Mother Tries To Sell Her Baby - 22 views

  •  
    Thats horrible! Whats happening to everyone? How can someone be so dumb? So sad
  • ...9 more comments...
  •  
    too bad she got caught.... she could have gotten $7,000....
  •  
    OMG!!! Suzanne? Too bad she got caught.?.. Sad story!
  •  
    Adoption
  •  
    is that a felony or a misdemeanor?
  •  
    It's not really like adoption because you don't paid for giving up your child. I suppose it could be closer to surrogacy because you pay someone a lot of money to carry a baby for you and they give it to you in return.
  •  
    What a crazy lady. She should've just given it up for adoption, at least.
  •  
    People need to be more responsible with their children.. This is absolutely ridiculous! Don't have children if you don't want to take care of them!
  •  
    I've always wanted a pet child...
  •  
    Wow, this is horrible! Just imagine the affects that this will have on the child when hes old enough to understand that his own mother tried to sell him when he was just a baby!
  •  
    Shows how desperate people are these days..
  •  
    7000 wouldn't even cover the costs of child birth. Come on profit margin...
Jeremy Vogel

SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters - 0 views

  •  
    During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    Personally (no one take this offensively) I agree with Romney. It is those types of people that want Obama to win, now I'm not saying that is all of them, but that is most definitely majority. Stereotypes such as this one are based off of majority and are almost always true. Yes, Mitt Romney should not have stereotyped these people, but don't we all do it at some point? No one should get mad about this because he was making a point (that so happens to be true). No one in this country has the right to health care, food or housing. There is no part of the constitution that states that. "He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them." I believe that this quote sums up those types of people perfectly. These people are the ones who are burdens to our society and will vote him to be president and will eventually change the country for the worst. Now, I realize that this is a strong point, but it is my opinion. I do not intend to offend anyone because you could disagree with me and I would accept that. But, people need to take care of themselves and not depend on anyone, not even the government to take care of them. People like this claim to be for equality, then be equal and pay taxes and take care of your self on your OWN just like the rest of us. To me, that makes a better person. (I know I went on a rant, but this again is my opinion.)
  •  
    Not everyone the NEEDS help from the government wants it. It doesn't mean they are freeloaders. They have to do what they have to do to support their family. If I was of age I would vote for Obama not because I want to freeload off the government but because I don't want someone like Romney that I feel to be ignorant and unfit to be the president. My parents voted for Obama and will vote for him this election not because they freeload off the government but because they agree with the things Obama is wanting to do and not what Romney wants to do. I think that's what the majority of people who vote for Obama are thinking. Just my opinion.
  •  
    I don't think anyone needs help from the government, because they're the ones who got themselves in that mess to need so much "help" anyways. The government, tax payers and citizens of America don't owe anything to those people who got themselves into those situations. I think the government needs to be in as little of people's lives as possible. I know what I'm saying is kind of harsh and is tough for those people who are in tight situations that I know I've never had to experience and I am thankful for that. But I know if I was brought up in a life of welfare (just an example no offense) or a government funded program or made a bad choice to get into a bad situation in the future, I would be ashamed and embarrassed and would do everything in my power to get my butt off the couch and do something about it. There are options in life that will lead to a better outcome of success, but people are choosing to take the easy way out and use the government for these things because they are just plain lazy and don't want to take the challenge that is required to become successful.
  •  
    My question to you is then what about the people with disabilities? That can't go out and work. The people who are mentally or physically handicapped because of nothing in their power. What happens to them? No one is there for them? They NEED the governments help to live. Not all of them can go out and get jobs to support themselves.What about those girls that are 20 and were raped and now have a kid? Maybe they NEED help from the government. I'm not saying that you're wrong. I think that too many people are abusing the governments help but saying that no one needs government help is wrong some select few people/groups do need the help of our government.
  •  
    So say that someone is in a car accident. They are hit by a drunk driver who is completely at fault. Because of the accident the victim becomes a paraplegic. This is a permanent condition. Don't they deserve help from the government?
  •  
    Like Rainie and Jeremy said, not everybody has the ability to get off their butt and go work. But people that have the ability need to quit taking advantage of the government.
  •  
    Yes, that is a type of situation where someone would be in need of help. But again, is that their problem? And I agree, he would need help and in his condition, it is provable but what about the people who take advantage of the government and I thought I made it clear that those are the ones who I was talking about. Didn't I say the lazy ones? Not the permanently injured.
  •  
    I agree, people should have to prove that they need help and don't have any other options. Too many people take advantage of the system. I've actually had someone come into the deli where I work and ask if we were hiring, and when I told him I could check, he said he was just asking about jobs so that he could continue receiving unemployment. I think that attitude is way too prevalent in our country.
  •  
    The idea of people needing government aid is very broad. I can tell you now, everyone who has ever gone to school was on public aide, some more then others. The government aides the school you go to, for every student, they receive appx. $6000 per student. Now, if we as students were not on government aid, I can tell you now I would not be at school. My parents could not afford $6000 a year for me to go to school. Not to mention another $6000 for my brother. The average student that stops at high school is there for anywhere from 13-14 years, that's over $78000 just to get every student a high school diploma, all of which is funded by the government. I know that the average income of a household is 63k a year. Now take that down to 50k from house payments, which most people do not complete until at least 60. Assuming the average household has 2 children, you are now down to 38k. Assuming your parents both have to make car payments, that is 12k a year for the average american. 26k left. The middle lower class is now spend, on average they make 40k, and have about 6k left. Now, what about income taxes, regular taxes, gas money, food, water, electricity, injury, insurance, and other daily expenses. The middle class can barely get by. As for people people not being able to make that kind of money, the middle class is primarily college graduates, with a bachelors degree. You would be surprised as to how many people do not have that. As for, they could have made it happen. I would disagree, some people are simply not smart enough to get EVERY scholarship out there. I know I am not one of those that can. It's not fair when someone has potential, and cannot go to college when someone with half the potential can just because they already have money. The more potential student should receive that aide.
claireboes

Could a beard be bad for your health? - 2 views

  •  
    As CBS2 New York's Alice Gainer reports, there are a few health issues a man should consider before he starts growing a beard...
mya_doty

90-year-old Florida man charged for feeding homeless people - 28 views

shared by mya_doty on 05 Nov 14 - No Cached
  •  
    (CNN) -- Arnold Abbott handed out four plates of food to homeless people in a South Florida park. Then police stopped the 90-year-old from serving up another bite. "An officer said, 'Drop that plate right now -- like I had a weapon,'" Abbott said.
  • ...24 more comments...
  •  
    Whats wrong with that.
  •  
    I think that's awful and definitely shouldn't be against the law. Providing the homeless with a meal doesn't necessarily keep them on the street, rather them starving and not having any energy to even try to turn their lives around is.
  •  
    Instead of it be against the law, they should be encouraging more people to feed them. If we just let them sit there and starve they will die, I would rather have homeless people living, then a bunch of dead bodies laying around the city. Maybe all they need to get the motivation to get up and get a job, is by other people showing that care about them, and want them to live a healthy a life.
  •  
    I think this is absolutely ridiculous. How could the government of Fort Lauderdale be so ignorant and selfish? Granted, some people are homeless because they've made bad decisions to get to that point but some are homeless because they honestly can't help it. Who knows? But I think it should be okay for people to feed the homeless. It should be comforting knowing that people have caring hearts and are willing to give the less-unfortunate people food. I hope the banning of giving food to the homeless never becomes illegal in the state of Iowa because I have given homeless people food countless of times and I will not stop.
  •  
    I don't think it should be against the law, its just help. Just because someone fed one person doesn't mean everyones going to go and be homeless.
  •  
    Reading this story upsets me because no one should be charged for feeding the homeless. That is the same as arresting and charging a man/woman for donating to charity. I do believe that some people are homeless because they got themselves there from their life decisions and choices, however others have no other way out. For example, a veteran could be very ill after coming back home and maybe having PTSD and feel helpless and lost. They do not know where to go or who to ask for help. Helping the homeless lets them know that someone cares and wants to help, and I feel this act of kindness might just be the motivation they need to get themselves together and fix their life. This helps them know they are not alone. Florida is ridiculous for charging that man. Instead of it being a bad thing, let us encourage it.
  •  
    People should be able to help whoever they please. I think the man shouldn't get in trouble because he is helping them by giving them meals. This could also help them save money and eventually buy/ rent a house in the future.
  •  
    Every town has some sort of poverty and not feeding the homeless isn't going to get rid of them.
  •  
    Feeding the homeless should not be a crime. It is helping someone in need which is what citizens of a community should be doing is helping people in need and getting the back on there feet.
  •  
    I don't believe that Abott should be arrested just because he was doing a good deed. I understand the views of the policeman and how they're just doing their job but it's not fair to Abott that he was just trying to be a good person. There is no reason why he should be arrested and think it's crazy that people are getting upset for helping the homeless. They should just leave him alone because it doesn't affect their lives in a big way.
  •  
    I do think that feeding them food -may- keep them in that cycle. MAY. I highly doubt it does though, because those homeless people probably have nowhere else to go at this point. And how are they suppose to "break" the cycle if they have nowhere to go? No job? If Florida isn't letting these people feed homeless people, then how about THEY do something about it rather than just giving everyone fines and acting without thinking.
  •  
    I think the city had made this a law in order to give the homeless an incentive to get a job. Which I personally believe is a terrible idea. No one likes living homeless, everyone needs a helping hand sometimes. I would think the officers of the city would have enough morals and ethics to not enforce this law. To be ignored and simply done away with in a few months. It's a sad day when helping becomes illegal.
  •  
    i don't get why feeding the homeless is against the law, whats wrong with it? your helping a person maybe even saving their life.
  •  
    I think the law against public food sharing is ridiculous. These kind of rules don't encourage the homeless to start getting back on their feet. Yes, they rely on the food given to them but all the law is doing is pushing the homeless out of Fort Lauderdale, to other areas. Rather then enforcing this new law they should come up with program that provide the homeless with job training and experience so they can really start off productively on their own.
  •  
    To put it lightly the banning of public food sharing is a stupid, stupid law. Credit, however, to Seiler for saying, "Providing them with a meal and keeping them in that cycle on the street is not productive." He made a valid point, yes, but a homeless person is just the same as a person who owns four houses, they just don't have as much luxury. I think homeless shelters, or even what Arnold Abbot does, feeding the people in need on a beach, that's their luxury. How are you going to take away something like that, for most, it might keep them hopeful. It shouldn't be up to the law who we as people want to help.
  •  
    this is a joke, how can you not feed another human being??
  •  
    To me this is not just and feeding the homeless isn't against the law. My assumption is that the cop had hard feelings against the homeless guy and was enforcing illegally.
  •  
    I don't think that this should be an actual law, what's the harm in feeding the poorest of the poor people? Cops are cracking down way too hard on the wrong "laws". There are criminals out there killing people, dealing drugs, stealing, and we're giving them jail time with possible probation, but feeding a homeless man is a serious crime? Think again.
  •  
    I think this is ridiculous. We give our police too much power. Feeding the homeless is not a crime and it never should be. We have soup kitchens and things for them. How is it any different? The cops are pretty much taking away our rights and telling us not to be nice? Totally wrong.
  •  
    I think Abbott has a right to feed the homeless. They don't have anything so we don't just want them to die in the street for starvation that's inhumane. They're just homeless people that are trying to eat the police should have their attention on things that are more important crimes. Besides feeding homeless people isn't a crime.
  •  
    This sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  •  
    I don't understand what is so wrong with feeding the homeless. I'd do the same exact thing if I could. Police officers are suppose to protect and that means everyone, even the homeless. If a police officer became homeless, losing his job, house, family, etc. I'm sure his friends and past co-workers would feed him too. So what makes him any different than the "random homeless guy on the street." ? I don't think Abbott should get charged.
  •  
    his sound unbelievable to me and I hope it does it to many other people too. We have to find sympathy to those people and don't think they are some other kind of thing, They are also humans with feelings.
  •  
    I don't see what is wrong with feeding the homeless. These people are at the lowest point in their lives and need all the help they can get and they fact that the city just want's to look the other way while these people suffer and hope that they go away is heartbreaking. People should help the homeless, help them get back on track and get their lives in order not treat them like a rat. There are actually criminals that get to go free and an old man who was helping the homeless gets put in jail? That's ridiculous.
  •  
    There is nothing wrong with feeding those who don't have food. But I also believe at some point these people should have done something to prevent themselves from getting to the point that they can't afford food. Everybody gets a chance to try to find a place where they can support themselves. But I also believe it is wrong to prevent someone from trying to help them along, all they are trying to do is make their lives a little bit easier. There is no reason this man should be put in jail, he has done no wrong.
  •  
    I don't see anything wrong with giving to the homeless, but instead of giving an giving I would try and get them a job or help them
tcomulada881

Figure in ISIS mass beheading video could have US ties, linguistic expert says - 5 views

  •  
    A linguistics expert believes the man who threatens the West in an Islamic State video purportedly showing the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians was educated in the United States. But Erick Thomas, a professor of acoustics and dialects at North Carolina State University, says it's unclear whether the mysterious, shrouded figure in the video released on Sunday is from the U.S.
  •  
    I honestly don't understand why people would do this, kill innocent people for no reason really? it does not make any since to me. and the fact that he may be american and is killing Americans, what could we have possibly done to him to make him want to do this?? i really feel bad for the people whom live over there and have the same religion as Isis members, i'm sure there not all bad.. it must really be quite an embarrassment.
Bryan Pregon

Nebraska outlaws the death penalty - CNNPolitics.com - 17 views

  •  
    "Six states have abolished capital punishment since 2007 -- Nebraska is now the seventh."
  • ...17 more comments...
  •  
    I think it was a good idea to outlaw the death penalty, personally because I don't think that you should take someones life in punishment of someone else's. "An eye for an eye." There's always another way to deal with this, not greet it with death. If anything, I'd sentence him to jail for most of his life or his whole life in that matter. But the Government itself can also make a mistake and accuse the innocent of murder and then give them death as a punishment. They'd be in the wrong. Death is more drastic to me then spending a few years in jail, (thinking about it in a family way).
  •  
    Keeping someone in jail for their whole life takes millions of dollars paid from the tax payers. If their crime was drastic enough then I am fully in support of the death penalty. Jail is basically a long term time out chamber for people to get clean and think about what they did. If you have already murdered, or raped, or abused someone a thirty year wag of the finger is not going to change their behavior.
  •  
    I believe in the death penalty. Let's say there's a serial killer and he's already murdered a good amount of people. Would you really want that person to go on living his or her life after all the pain he caused for all of those families? I know I wouldn't.
  •  
    I believe in the death penalty because if someone has already done a good amount of harm to others and they have died because of it then the person who committed the crime deserves the same. Keeping them in prison is just a waste of money and giving them to much time. They deserve nothing less and being in prison isn't going to change their behavior.
  •  
    As a very liberal person myself, and the death penalty is a conservative policy for crime, I am happy to see a state so close to home abolish this penalty. We have prisons and judges and laws for a reason that will punish those who do bad things. What are we accomplishing by killing someone publicly for killing others?
  •  
    I belive the death penalty is okay becasue you have to commit a pretty serious crime to get the death penalty and really in that case you almost kind of deserve it because of the pain you caused to multiple people.
  •  
    The death penalty is a tricky subject to talk about, most people are strictly for the death penalty, or strongly against it. However, in my opinion, I believe that everything has a consequence to a set of actions. Is it necessary to kill somebody though? I think everyone deserves a second chance especially if they know they are in the wrong and trying to change their lives around. The type of crime the person committed is the key. Let's say a person committed murder, would you say "an eye for an eye?" and kill them too through the death penalty? If you were to do this, aren't you doing the same thing that they committed? Overall, I think it was wise that Nebraska outlawed the death penalty.
  •  
    I don't believe in the death penalty, because by killing someone who killed someone else it's hypocritical. I think it's wrong to kill anyone, even if they killed someone else. The death penalty also put innocent lives at risk, someone could have been framed for the murder. The death penalty also costs a lot of money, people think that it's okay because they think that it saves the government from spending money but we are still spending a lot. There are a lot better ways to avoid the death penalty, and there a lot of mentally ill patients killed by the death penalty.
  •  
    I believe that outlawing the death penalty is the right thing to do because you shouldn't fight fire with fire. It is wrong to show that killing, or any other act of the sort, is wrong by doing the same thing. It is also a good thing because there have been wrong accusations in the past, and the death penalty cannot be undone. If you argue for a just prosecution, they can live with the guilt of their crime in prison. If they felt no remorse then the person should get pyschiatric help to correct the situation. There is also data that says the death penality costs more than housing the prisoner because of the long appeal process.
  •  
    Spending jail time is to help you become a better person because you did something bad. Killing someone does not help them become better as a person.
  •  
    I believe in the death penalty, if someone has committed a big enough crime.I don't think it should be outlawed becuase If someone has tortured and/or murdered multiple people than they should.
  •  
    Moms freakin out by this she wont shut up about it its hilarious
  •  
    I think it is good that states are starting to outlaw the death penalty. If someone kills someone why does it make it right for them to be killed even if its by the government. Today we see punishments like the electric chair as barbaric and years from now people will say the same thing about the death penalty.
  •  
    I think we should keep the death penalty why should we have people murder other people and live in prison the rest of their lives we should show them what the did to people i mean the deserve so i think we should keep the death penalty
  •  
    We should keep the death penalty because if you take a persons life or multiple peoples lives then yes the state should take yours. Only if it was on purpose, because you get in a car crash and kill someone from the impact that shouldn't really count because it wasn't intended. Also if someone gets life in prison they get everything pretty much handed to them and they don't to pay for it. For example Nikko Jenkins killed multiple people on multiple occasions and no justice happened for the family's who had to deal with the loss of a loved one because hes just going to prison for life.
  •  
    I think the death penalty is okay to have in every state. If you are willing to murder a person then you should be murdered yourself. The crime they commit should be used in the same way against them.
  •  
    but are you willing to take it yourself for a crime that's the question everyone fears.
  •  
    I think its okay if the person that going into it haves killed like 40 people and they in joy doing it but if you just kill some one on accident then its not right just to give them the death penalty, instead they should just be locked up.
  •  
    Bumped for discussion on Political Ideology.
diegosalinas

Poll: Trump approval falls as majority of Americans brace for recession - POLITICO - 1 views

  •  
    Even if his approval rating drops at all, I don't believe people are going to stop saying he's a "great" president.
  •  
    I think it's interesting that the article claims Americans are bracing for a recession. We have a record high DOW Jones stock, unemployment is decreasing (more than 20 million new jobs since 2010), and Americans, in general, have more money in their pockets than we did 3 years ago. https://ig.ft.com/sites/numbers/economies/us/ It also piques my interest that the article claims the Trump approval rating as a whole is falling. After the democratic debates, Donald Trump has only increased in followership, rally attendance, etc. This is the reason people keep saying he's a "great" president. You might not like him as a person, I might not like him as a person, but if he continues to put a dent in the public debt, and continues to uphold basic constitutionalist ideals, he will continue to see success in America. I think it's interesting and I predict that the 2020 election will play out very similarly to the 2016 election. The democratic party did everything in their power to stop Trump from becoming president. Both Republicans and Democrats alike turned to personal attacks and scandals. Even if all the candidates are bad, we have to pick the best one. Trump was able to win against the Democrats because they didn't have any solid plans with evidence for the policies they wanted to implement. Trump has an upper-hand because he's never changed too. Democrats have flipped like no other when it comes to policies because they are desperate to be approved of by the younger masses. Trump has always supported a smaller government, focused on the economy, and wanted stricter foreign relations. The same cannot be said about Democrats, their talking points are that of enabling a welfare state, stripping citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, and their false sense of acceptance. tl;dr: orange man bad, but doing his job well.
qanderson136

North Korea warns of Very grave situation after Biden called it a security threat - 11 views

  •  
    Thoughts?
  • ...8 more comments...
  •  
    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.
  •  
    North Korea has always been an issue and I think they should keep an eye on them. We've almost always had issues with them it's hard to imagine being allies with them like that.
  •  
    North Korea has always been a threat to the U.S. because of how unpredictable they can be. We have literally always had problems with them.
Bryan Pregon

Trump and his wife Melania test positive for coronavirus | Reuters - 8 views

  •  
    Global reactions have ranged from "Get well soon" to "I told you so" to even more blunt "wishes" for Trump. Remember that we are discussing this in an educational context for those who are going to comment on this situation. How do you think this is going to affect the election with only 32 days until the election?
  • ...12 more comments...
  •  
    I think that a lot of people are happy t0 see this happen based on what he says about coronavirus. Personally, I do not think that it will make a difference in what he says about coronavirus. The reason that I believe this is because Trump is most likely going to survive coronavirus because he is getting the best medical care around. I think after that he will still talk about how it is still a hoax becuase he survived it.
  •  
    I think that Trump didn't believe in COVID-19 until it actually happened to him and I hope that he will be more empathetic toward Americans going through this too. It did say he was symptomatic and that he is at high risk so there's a possibility that he might not make it.
  •  
    I think now that Trump has COVID-19 his political campaign will be impacted. He will need to be in quarantine for at least 2 weeks and with so few days left until the election, his campaign will be at least a little bit impacted. Even though he has COVID-19 I don't think his outlook on it will change at all.
  •  
    I hope now that Trump has COVID-19 he will be more willing to help other people with it and now be able to understand what others are going through.
  •  
    I hope that Trump is more willing to help people and realizes that coronavirus is a serious thing, now that he has it.
  •  
    I hope that Trump realizes that now that he has COVID-19 that it's a serious thing and helps other people with it.
  •  
    Its funny this happened right after he was making fun of biden for wearing a mask
  •  
    Hopefully, Trump is less insensitive to those who have COVID or have a family member who has had it and realizes how real and bad the virus can really be.
  •  
    I think it's ironic how after he's been saying for months that masks don't work and that the pandemic is a hoax that he contracts COVID. But even though he does have corona, he still isn't taking it serious. He's taking off his mask two days after the diagnosis in front of a sea of reporters and I just think it's despicable.
  •  
    I think that Trump with remain ignorant to the real effects of COVID and will continue to promote unhealthy recommendations to the public. I don't think having COVID will change him at all as he continues to display his normal narcissistic and dangerous behaviors that he always had
  •  
    It sounds like he is starting to take precautions and is learning from previous choices he may have made.
  •  
    I think that Trump is going to continue to take advice from the scientists but he is going to do what he feels is needed to "protect himself" from the Corona Virus. This doesn't mean he isn't going to not follow the ppe guidelines fro when in public.
  •  
    I think it's good he got it because he's learning how serious it really is. sometimes it takes the first-hand experience to realize the truth about something. I think this is a slap in the face to some of the republicans that didn´t believe it.
  •  
    I think it's kinda like karma for making fun of joe for wearing his mask all the time, although it does make him look bad because the president of our country makes fun of people for protecting themselves and taking covid seriously.
‹ Previous 21 - 40 of 148 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page