Skip to main content

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

Group items matching
in title, tags, annotations or url

Sort By: Relevance | Date Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
2More

Biden's warning to ISIS militants: 'We will follow them to the gates of hell' - 1 views

  •  
    (CNN) -- Vice President Joe Biden on Wednesday issued a sharp warning to ISIS militants, saying after the United States is done grieving the death of two American journalists, their killers will have to answer for their actions.
  •  
    I liked how confident Joe Biden was while speaking to the people. He has high hopes that whatever America gets tossed, we can overcome.
3More

Aaron Schock to resign amid spending scandal - CNN.com - 3 views

shared by peytonjs on 18 Mar 15 - No Cached
  •  
    In a statement, he said he was stepping down "with a heavy heart," having given his constituents "my all over the last six years." "But the constant questions over the last six weeks have proven a great distraction that has made it too difficult for me to serve the people of the 18th District with the high standards that they deserve and which I have set for myself," he added.
  •  
    not what somebody in his piston should do but it is something that probable happens often
  •  
    It angers me that someone could spend that money inappropriately and not face more serious repercussions.
1More

Washington school shooter texted lunch table invites to victims - 3 views

  •  
    (CNN) -- The five victims in last week's shooting at a Washington high school were invited to the same lunch table by the shooter. "It's our understanding he (invited them) via texting," Snohomish County Sheriff Ty Trenary told reporters Monday.
1More

Sen. Rand Paul set to join 2016 presidential field - 0 views

  •  
    Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul is expected to launch his 2016 presidential campaign at high noon on Tuesday, bringing his libertarian-leaning brand of conservatism to what is likely to be a crowded primary field.
5More

In the Era of High-Tech Law Enforcement, Who Will Keep Our Privacy Safe? - 7 views

  •  
    While the Western world was watching and grieving over the slaughter in Paris last week, and my colleagues in the media were fomenting a meaningless debate about whether President Obama should have gone to Paris to participate in a televised parade, the feds took advantage of that diversion to reveal even more incursions into our liberties than we had known about.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I really don't like being watched by other people. We should think that we can talk to someone privately without someone knowing. BUt we can't, I really don't think we are free doing anything in our daily lives.
  •  
    Supposedly law enforcement having access to all of this information is in our best interest. But is it really? I know as well as you that there are some crooked cops out there. Who knows what they could do with that information. It does concern me that there are too many people that have access to everything we do or have on devices. This is a major violation of rights who is to say that they don't start violating our other rights just because it MIGHT keep us safer.
  •  
    I don't think that it's right that the government has a right to see our bills, listen to our phone calls, see our emails, etc. I think that if there isn't something that gives them a reason to suspect you they shouldn't be able to go through our stuff. In my opinion, it is absolutely ridiculous.
  •  
    This problem won't be faced until the populous takes action and that may take to long for the majority to realize the problem and the violation of privacy.
2More

Sen. Menendez To Face Corruption Charges - CNN.com - 4 views

shared by peytonjs on 01 Apr 15 - No Cached
  •  
    The case, brought by the Justice Department's public integrity unit, sets up a high-stakes battle between a New Jersey senator who has fought off investigations for years, and federal prosecutors and the FBI who have spent years pursuing him.
  •  
    interesting i think that he did it you don't give back that much money because of an "oversight"
1More

Congress Considers Limiting Pot Prohibition - 1 views

  •  
    Last week Georgia's legislature overwhelmingly approved a bill that allows people suffering from certain medical conditions, including epilepsy and multiple sclerosis, to treat their symptoms with cannabis oil that is low in THC but high in cannabidiol (CBD), a nonpsychoactive compound with considerable medical promise.
15More

Texas files suit in federal court over Syrian refugees - CNNPolitics.com - 29 views

shared by Bryan Pregon on 03 Dec 15 - No Cached
agilbert921 liked it
  •  
    "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a complaint in federal court against the United States, State Department and the International Rescue Committee, seeking a stay of federal plans to settle any Syrian refugees in his state."
  • ...12 more comments...
  •  
    Texas should let more refuges into their state because its not their decision, its the american goverenments
  •  
    I think we should help these refuges because we have procedures in our immigration process that, if done correctly, we will be protected against the very few ISIS terrorists that hide withing those refuges. Also it is a stand against ISIS if we continue letting them in because we will show that we are not afraid of them and fear is all terrorists have against the world.
  •  
    I think since Texas wasn't informed that the refugees were coming, they have a reason to be mad. Suing may be a little extreme, but it is a huge worry if they are threats to the safety of the Texas people, especially since it was confirmed they cannot do accurate background checks on them
  •  
    I think that the US should be doing what we can to help but I don't think anymore refugees should be allowed into the country. We should not be held accountable for taking care of them. If our nation will be put in danger by possible terrorists posing as refugees, we shouldn't allow anymore. A lot of the refugees that have already come to America have been complaining because we aren't giving them more things. We gave them food, shelter and protection but they complain about not being given TVs. Why should they get free things if half of our nations populous is under poverty line and expected to fend for themselves? I completely understand that they need help but we should not have to put our country in harms way to do it. There is no way to know if they are terrorists or refugees so we shouldn't take the risk.
  •  
    We should let them in but only with very high monitoring to track out the terrorists hiding in the crowds. It might be a evil way to do it but we will be able to stop the terrorists dead in their tracks without just ignoring their please for help. (ZAC OLSON)
  •  
    Texas should let them in but they should take certain steps to make sure that they are not terrorists. It isnt their choice to keep them out its the governments.
  •  
    The American Government should let the state make their own decision. If the state doesn't want to help, then let it be.
  •  
    I really don't know what I think the government should do at this point. I'm pretty neutral on the subject, because I fear for our safety while I also fear for the refugees. I do strongly believe though that these refugees do need a place to go where they can be safe, but it's hard to know whose good or bad.
  •  
    i wouldnt the refugees in because you dont know which ones are a threat i believe it would be to much of a risk
  •  
    I think that the way things are now, with the US not being able to individually make the decision whether or not refugees are allowed into a specific state, is the best for us right now because having one decision for the whole country is more organized and orderly than having every state with a different policy on refugees. Personally, I feel for the Syrian refugees because most of them are women and children. But at the same time, with the risk of letting terrorists in, it is a tough decision. If we did thorough background checks on every single person that came into the US from Syria then maybe I would think this would be okay. Because I don't think it's fair to stop women and children from living a good life here because there MAY be a terrorist among them.
  •  
    I believe that we shouldn't let just anyone in maybe do a background check before they enter our country just in case something is likely to happen, Not being stereotypical but with all the things that ISIS has done so far they could possibly plan something if we were to not accept any Syrians at all because we're "afraid".
  •  
    They do and they dont know whats all going down but they should let them in because its choice of the government to let the refuges in
  •  
    I think that we should take refugees in because they're trying to get out of that environment and the U.S could be a lot of help to them, but I also think we should keep our eyes opened because we don't know who is a threat and who isn't. It's a tough decision to be honest.
  •  
    I think that it's up to the government and not the individual states to decide whether to let the immigrants in or not

Tensions high as Baltimore awaits verdict in Freddie Gray trial - 1 views

started by carleebudd on 15 Dec 15 no follow-up yet
10More

Dazzling airplane patent puts seats on top of aircraft - CNN.com - 8 views

  •  
    Instead, this concept aims to give passengers an even better view of the skies than the pilot's by seating them on top of the plane, inside a transparent bubble-style canopy. U.S. aerospace technology company Windspeed says its SkyDeck design can be installed on a variety of aircraft, from private jets to wide-bodied commercial planes.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I feel like this can go both ways it can be a really silly idea and rip off the plane or be a great idea to have dates on an aircraft. ( ZAC OLSON )
  •  
    this would be cool. but this could also make it easier for people to high jack a plan or blow it up because they are in a glass dome on top of the plane, if you where to blow that dome off then the presser from the air would suck everything threw that hole.
  •  
    I think this is very dangerous idea.
  •  
    I think this sounds super cool, as long as they could find a way to make it safe.
  •  
    I think this is a super cool way to get people more interested in flying in airplanes. But there should be multiple tests before hand, just so we know that its intentionally a really safe place to be. Many things are dangerous about this idea, but its pretty cool.
  •  
    I may be missing something, but what does this have to do with government? I mean it's an interesting thing for sure, but what does a design of a commercial airplane matter to our government.
  •  
    This would be an interesting thing to make, as long as its safe, Some people would become more interested in flying since airplane rides are usually long and boring.
  •  
    This is really interesting, i think that people will really like this idea. But also i think they should find a way to keep this idea safe.
  •  
    I also think they should find a way to keep it safe.
2More

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.
7More

Trump budget calls for billions for border wall with Mexico - 5 views

  •  
    President Trump's discretionary budget plan set to be released Thursday reportedly includes a request for $2.6 billion in funding to begin planning and building a "physical wall" along the border with Mexico along with security funding. The Wall Street Journal reported that Tump will ask Congress for billions in new spending to be earmarked ofr immigration enforcement.
  • ...4 more comments...
  •  
    Trump thinks he'll be able to persuade mexico to build the wall. He's crazy for thinking that. Why would they want to help fund for the wall when they don't want be even leave the United States. There's no way he'll be able to persuade them.
  •  
    I doubt Mexico will at all consider paying for the wall, it's just not their problem.
  •  
    I doubt that Mexico will pay for it because Trump is the one who wants it up, not them.
  •  
    What will Trump do if they refuse to pay?
  •  
    I don't think Trump actually thought about what would need to happen to make his precious wall when he was campaigning. I think he was more focused on getting the position and making everything sound good and now that it's time to step up to the plate HE created, he's trying to find anyway to get the money needed to fill said plate. He wants to cut so many programs and he expects others to pay and he just has his expectation bar to high. The border wall he wants to make would take $21 billion dollars! That's a lot of money to raise and I just can't help but think, what are the consequences of the actions he's willing to take to make that money appear.
  •  
    Who is going to pay for the wall?
1More

Taking Stock of Hate Under Trump - 0 views

  •  
    Last week, the zoning board in Bayonne, New Jersey-just across New York Harbor from Sunset Park, Brooklyn-voted to deny a variance to Muslim residents who wanted to convert a warehouse into a mosque. The hearing had been moved to Bayonne High School, to accommodate a large crowd, and wound up lasting six hours.
10More

Russia claims it can wipe out US Navy with single 'electronic bomb' - 15 views

  •  
    Russia has claimed it can disable the entire US Navy in one fell swoop using powerful electronic signal jamming. A news report from the country - where the media is essentially controlled by the state - said the technology could render planes, ships and missiles useless.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    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 wonder if Donald Trump has done anything about this, or is planning to. Russia threatening us with this is very serious and I have a feeling Trump is not doing much. Could Russia really disable all planes and missiles through an electronic signal?
  •  
    Is the government going to do anything about this issue? Or should the people have to worry about a near future war ahead?
10More

It's now illegal in Russia to share an image of Putin as a gay clown - The Washington Post - 11 views

  •  
    "Russia has banned a picture depicting President Vladimir Putin as a potentially gay clown."
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    best headline
  •  
    I don't understand why Putin is making a big deal of this, if it was anyone else he probably wouldn't mind and might even laugh behind closed doors. But because it's him it's a big issue?
  •  
    I think Putin is definitely making a big deal out of one picture, if he doesn't want people to make fun of him or say what they want about him he shouldn't put himself in the spotlight.
  •  
    Freedom of speech isn't much of a right in Russia, but clearly Putin has some insecurities if he went this far.
  •  
    Why is this surprising at all? He is one of the most powerful rulers in the world why would he allow his people to mock him with pictures? Especially pictures depicting him as a gay clown. Not only is it disrespectful it is just dumb in my opinion.
  •  
    Putin is taking this to the extreme. It was just people protesting what they believe in and he got so upset about it that he decided to put people in jail for it.
  •  
    I think that this is being over dramatics. The picture is not harming anyone, people should not be put in jail over a stupid picture.
  •  
    As a public figure, like any, Putin should accept the pros and cons of being in his position, this included.
  •  
    I dont think they should have went that far and banned any images of vladimir because he should know that being at such a high power people are going to be making photos and comments that arent so pleasing.
30More

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

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

Iowa lifts mask mandate, gathering restrictions as U.K. variant surges - The Washington... - 27 views

  •  
    Is this the time or should we still keep the mandate and restrictions up until after the pandemic has officially ended? (Vaccines are done and no new cases.)
  • ...22 more comments...
  •  
    This seems like an absolutely bone head move by Governor Reynolds. I can understand now that cases are going down it seems like everything will be ok but restrictions are what bring cases down. Now with a new strain that is more infectious making its way to the US Iowa shouldn't lift any restrictions or things are going to get way worse.
  •  
    I think we should keep the restrictions, they are there to help the spread, even more, lifting it might just make things worse as how we are now. In the future, we might be ready to lift the restrictions, but it's too soon.
  •  
    i think we shouldn't lift the masking restrictions. just because the vaccines are out, doesn't mean the pandemic is over. not everyone will be getting the shot right away. numbers are going down because people are actually following the rules. when the numbers go down, we shouldn't lift the rules. it means the rules are actually working
  •  
    I think during this time lifting the restrictions is the worst possible thing we could do. There are new variants of COVID coming to the U.S. some of which are highly contagious which means now more than ever we should be wearing a mask. The only reason our numbers are down is due to these restrictions and now our governor is going to act shocked when the numbers go up again. We have battled back and forth between lifting restrictions and then enforcing them. Keeping restrictions until COVID is over seems like the most reasonable thing to do at this point.
  •  
    Even tho we have a vaccine out we should still use mask, because not everyone can get the vaccine right now.
  •  
    While we do have a vaccine being rolled out, this does not mean that we should lift the mask mandate. COVID-19 cases are going down but we still should be doing our best to make sure that we don't spread it. Plus, the vaccine is only 95% effective. While that is a large percentage, it doesn't mean that it completely protects us from COVID.
  •  
    I think that it's a horrible idea to lift the mask mandate now. Even though there is finally a light at the end of the tunnel with this pandemic it's just not a logical move to lift it now after months of it being in place when there was no solution. I think we should wait till everyone that wants to be is vaccinated and make sure that it makes a big enough impact that losing our mask will not have an effect the spread. I understand that this pandemic is getting old but if we all start spreading it right before the vaccine is released to everyone and things get so out of hand that we have to lock down again all we have done will be for nothing.
  •  
    The mask mandate should not be lifted, numbers are going down because people are being safe and wearing masks. The vaccine is out but not everyone has access to it and it is not completely effective. People going out in public with no mask increases the chance of either getting COVID or spreading it more. The mask mandate and restrictions should not be lifted until later on in the future when more people have the vaccine, now does not seem like the right time.
  •  
    We shouldn't lift the mask mandate. Numbers are going down because we're wearing masks, if we allow people not to wear masks cases will spike. We need to be diligent with these safety measures if we ever want this pandemic to be over.
  •  
    i dont think we should lift the mask mandate because even if the numbers are going down theyre just going to go right back up. there are still a lot of people who think masks are dumb and useless and refuse to wear them and they put other people at risk, the mandate was the only thing keeping others safe from them. i also know multiple people who arent able to get the vaccine because of past health issues and so wearing a mask was their only way of staying safe.
  •  
    This doesn't seem safe or smart because cases are still high, and even if they're decreasing now they will spike if everyone stops wearing a mask.
  •  
    The numbers are going to continue to grow with stuff like this happening. We already don't have a stay at home order,but now we're lifting the masks? This isn't going to make the virus disappear. If anything it will make things worse
  •  
    I don't think we should lift our masks now since Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.
  •  
    Lifting our masks now, would just cause more cases to rise and more people will get confirmed. Also there is not enough vaccines currently to give to everyone.
  •  
    I agree with bklopp601 because I don't think we should lift our masks because Covid is still going on, if we lift our masks then Covid will just rise right back up and we'll just have to go back into quarantine.
  •  
    I don't agree that we should lift the mask mandate as more people will get infected and cases will spike up causing another full lockdown and another mask mandate will be enforced later again.
  •  
    I don't think we should have lifted the mask mandate now that it is lifted more people are going to be getting sick & the cases are going to rise again meaning we could go into another lockdown & the mask mandate will be brought back
  •  
    I don't think they should lift the mask mandate. Yes, people are getting the vaccine, but most people don't have access to it, plus others don't feel safe getting it. We also have different strains of the virus going around that are more contagious than the original.
  •  
    I think that lifting the mask mandate is just going to set us back. Even though people are getting the vaccine, majority do not.
  •  
    I don't think they should've lifted the masking policy. Although cases are going down, Covid is still alive and thriving. If we lift the masking mandates now, we may need to wear masks longer in the future
  •  
    I agree that the mask mandate should have stayed in place because the cases may be going down but the virus is still very easily spread and without masks cases are destined to go back up.
  •  
    I don't think they should have lifted it, but honestly, not much has changed, most businesses are still requiring masks (as they should). I still think there needs to be a mandate though.
  •  
    I think its good that the mandate is lifted.
  •  
    I think its fine they lift it as long people keep getting vaccinated, but they should definitely keep the mandate in hospitals and places like that.
17More

Volunteers provide oxygen as India's COVID-19 cases near 20 million | Reuters - 16 views

  •  
    Do you guys think they should go into a lockdown? Do you think we should join the UK in sending aid to them?
  • ...14 more comments...
  •  
    I think India should seriously considering going into a lock down, even for a few days or weeks. That way it can contain the spread of the virus outbreak. Last year, we learned about the dangers of not containing this virus. I also think the U.S. should join the UK in helping them. I know our country has it's own problems, but if we can -- even just a little bit -- we should help others in the world during these tough times.
  •  
    i think that india should go into lockdown. cases are rising and if they don't quarantine, it will continue to rise
  •  
    They should consider a lockdown. So many people are getting sick, it's the best way to go. If they don't, who knows what could happen?
  •  
    they should definitely go on lockdown because it will just get worse and worse if they do not do anything right now when they should.
  •  
    I strongly feel that India should go on a breathly lockdown. The virus could spread more than it already is. With caution and responsibility, I feel like the numbers would go down by a lot. Now that covid has been going on for more than a year, we should think and do more research of how we should help others.
  •  
    I think for a country like India it's more complicated then just going into a lockdown. They have a population much higher than countries that have been able to successfully have lockdowns which makes it inherently much harder. On top of this India socioeconomic makeup make up is substantially poorer than countries that have had lockdowns as well. For a lot of India's population a lockdown just isn't viable, and you can see this in what happened in America as well where poorer people worked through lockdowns and because of this in poorer areas COVID spread easily. However this is a large portion of India's population, so this is an area where America needs to start exporting our extra vaccines since we have already had major success in our vaccine roll out and this is a grave situation
  •  
    I think India needs to go on a heavy lockdown. It's important that they take a lot of precautions because the virus could spread more than it already is and prevent another world lockdown from happening and keep other people safe. It would also help their numbers go down and to keep the threat of it spreading contained.
  •  
    India should go on lockdown right now when they can before it gets even worse for the people/
  •  
    With the severity of COVID in India, I think they need to come up with a strategic plan to control the virus. Whether that means a heavy lockdown or something else it's important they do something now before it gets even worse. They are in a terrible place right now with the amount of COVID cases and I don't think anyone wants to know what it will be like if it continues to get any worse.
  •  
    India definitely needs a lockdown right now. With COVID cases rising so drastically, this is the best possible thing for them to do to hopefully slow the spread of the virus.
  •  
    Understandably the severity of COVID-19 is extremely high, but India is also a third world country that relies heavily on their work force to bring in any kind of revenue for their government. In a country like India the governments respect for the residents is slim so while they should go into lock down I don't believe they will.
  •  
    They definitley need a lockdown as soon as possible. That could be a huge mess for India if covid isn't solved. I do think the US could provide aid I don't see why we couldn't?
  •  
    They should go on lockdown, it'd benefit them so things don't get worse. They are suffering and need as much help as possible so we should help them.
  •  
    I do believe they need to go into lockdown very soon so they can try to help keep themselves safe.
  •  
    I think they should go into lockdown to make sure everyone is safe.
  •  
    I think they should go to lockdown since covid is very bad there.
10More

3 million new Covid-19 infections were reported in November, as hospitalizations reach ... - 7 views

  •  
    I can't imagine how many cases there are going to be in December when Christmas rolls around.
  • ...7 more comments...
  •  
    I think cases are going to rise very dramatically due to people getting together for Thanksgiving and Christmas.
  •  
    I think that the cases are going to keep going up. People are still going to get together for Christmas and thanksgiving and it is going to go way up.
  •  
    Cases are going to keep going up over the holidays.
  •  
    people are still getting together in big groups for the holidays and the number of cases is going to rise more and more.
  •  
    I'm sure no matter how you look at it, the cases will drastically go up in December. Especially since Christmas is rolling around, we saw how many families and people still gathered together for Thanksgiving. It's not going to be any better for Christmas.
  •  
    This is just going to get worse after black friday if nothing changes.
  •  
    thanksgiving and christmas are both holidays that are meant to be spent with your families so there was already no doubt that cases were going to go up. and same goes for black friday, you're shopping at multiple different stores in the span of two or three days
  •  
    Many people are spending time with their families around this time so there was no doubt that cases would have gone up. I'm just surprised they went up so drastically and in such a short period.
  •  
    we all suspected the rate of infection would go up during the holidays. meeting with people from all over the country definitely increases the amount of exposure a family can receive. people can choose to connect virtually instead of in person. it's not the same, but it decreases the exposure
1More

CDC Study Shows Low COVID Spread in Schools | Newsmax.com - 3 views

  •  
    This article discusses two CDC studies- one on low risk of school spread and one on high risk of sports spreading COVID. After reading, which do you agree more with?
« First ‹ Previous 81 - 100 of 110 Next ›
Showing 20 items per page