@8GMR5G7

J>J  Jawapan peribadiBoth yes AND no, because of upsides and downsides to this. First of all, no, teachers, or at least certain teachers should not be permitted to carrying firearms in school buildings because there could be the possibility that a teacher could let loose their anger upon any student or group of students at any given point in time, and giving teachers firearms would put students who have a teacher with anger management issues at a larger risk, because that teacher could open fire on a student(s) who made the teacher snap via purposely or accidentally doing something wrong, and at still more risk it that teacher is able to hold back their anger a bit, because other students in the class, or in a previous class if in the case of middle schools, high schools, colleges, and universities, because those other students could have riled up the teacher, and that last student(s) being the one to put the final nail in the coffin, whether it be accidentally, or purposely. This would, again, cause the teacher to finally snap, and enter a possible uncontrollable rage state, and with the presence of a possible easily accessible firearm, the teacher could shoot said student(s), or a different student(s) of their choice, on top of this, students could gang up on the teacher and steal the firearm, possibly using it to kill the teacher. On the other hand, teachers, or at least certain teachers SHOULD be permitted to carrying firearms in school because in case the security guards or police or whomever would be standing guard at the school building wasn't enough to hold off armed criminal personnel attempting a school shooting, the teachers could tell students to run, but could also tell them to not go far enough to where they wouldn't be able to see what was happening, if the students are older and more capable of withstanding the trauma of seeing someone get shot, so that if the criminal is eliminated, the students could come back if they saw this, or continue to run if the shooter succeeds in killing the teacher, and on top of this, if

J>J  Jawapan peribadiPro-pilihan, saya tidak bersetuju tetapi kerajaan tidak mempunyai hak untuk melarangnya

J>J  Jawapan peribadiAs answered before, which I am going to copy and paste, because I've already typed this all, I am also going to add some things, which will be in between two 'apostrophes', and things I cut out will be in quotation marks within another set of "quotation marks", and parts I replace with other words will be in between two /slashes/, because I am even going as far as to quote my own work, because it has an original source, so, "Yes, because the richer you are, the higher 'the' tax costs you can pay for, and so if richer people were to pay MORE taxes, then not only would citizens with poor'er' wealth need to pay less, or even no taxes, but if we increased taxes for the rich so that their taxes costed them /the same percentage of their money out of the amount they earn as the percent an average citizen of average wealth spends on THEIR/ taxes out of the total amount of money 'that' they earn, decreas/ing/ the amount of taxes that citizens of average wealth spend by 1.5 times, 'and' decreas/ing/ the amount of taxes that citizens of poor wealth spend out of the total THEY earn by 75%, and homeless citizens who pay taxes, 'well,' no longer having to pay taxes (because some homeless citizens have jobs, which means they have money to spend, and when they spend that money, the pay taxes as a result), and when they do get homes, only having to spend /10% of what/"" citizens of average wealth spend on taxes/./ If all of these requirements were met, then free education might be just within our reach." Doing this will also cause similar tax-related events to occur, such as, just as examples, roads not costing the majority of citizens as much to create or re-pave, the majority of citizens not paying as much to keep the government and the military going without much issue, doctors being able to get a hold of better, safer, steadier, more precise, more advanced equipment, etcetera (for the examples of tax-related effects, not the list of attributes the better equipment doctors could get).

J>J  Jawapan peribadiYes, along with, on the news, "explaining" to viewers how doctors have "changed" what's in vaccines, but also say that Anti-Vaxxers "have a shared dark secret", but they would have to look at the end of the news broadcast's speech to text transcript in order to get Anti-Vaxxers to vaccinate both their kids and themselves, but instead have this "secret" merged with the final paragraph, and say that nothing has changed about vaccines, they only said this to get Anti-Vaxxers to vaccinate themselves and their families. On top of this, funding public ad campaigns about the benefits of getting vaccinated, and the risks of not doing so, and for it, in general, being essential to protecting other children who are too young to be vaccinated. Regardless, the government should take care of this, but only at a state level.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiNo, we should invest in cleaner alternatives such as wind, hydroelectric, thorium, and geothermal because if a nuclear meltdown were to happen, big negative events such as moderate amounts of casualties and cancer from nuclear radiation would occur, and those are just examples of SMALL nuclear meltdowns! Remember Chernobyl? Yes, it was caused from user error, but very large and very catastrophic nuclear meltdowns similar to that one could still occur in many of the nuclear power plants dotted around the planet, in fact, in some areas afflicted by the Chernobyl disaster, people are still being affected by small amounts of nuclear radiation; too small to cause instantaneous negative impacts, but enough to cause permanent damage over time. Most nuclear reactors cool down using water, but needs so much water that only pipelines coming from the ocean can carry enough water to keep these things cool and prevent meltdowns caused from one problem, and due to global warming caused from the heating of Earth from it's previous ice age (yes, this is still happening), and that's the main cause of global warming, combined with in part greenhouse gasses, and this is also putting jellyfish populations on the rise, and because of how many there are, how thick and gooey they are, how thick the are, how many of them generally travel in extremely large groups, how easily they clump up after death, and after dying, all of the previous problems stated are amplified, (with the exception of travelling in large groups for, obvious reasons), making it really easy for a jellyfish or group of jellyfish to clog up a nuclear reactor's cooling pipe, thus causing even more nuclear meltdowns to occur much more often.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiYa, tetapi hanya jika perbelanjaan pergi ke arah penyelesaian yang mesra alam

J>J  Jawapan peribadiYes, though I do not think we need to ban them (not completely banned, just very limited and start the percentage lower and increase it gradually), but more importantly increase recycling so that way more people can recycle more often (also increase taxes on companies that make products that contain less than 50% of biodegradable materials to incentive them to make biodegradable products, try to replace most of—if not all—plastic with more biodegradable material) and increase consumer incentives to recycle these products. -Originally from some Democrat, they typed this, I just copied and pasted it so that I could use it as my answer.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiYes, but also not fully, the reason being that forcefully unemployed citizens, homeless citizens, and citizens physically incapable of doing any work SHOULD get this basic income program, but tests and studies on the economy, how citizens spend the money they earn, and the wealth of citizens in general should occur before implementing this onto everyone and adding this to everyone's daily lives.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiFor people who think that letting things happen naturally, not wearing a face mask, to them, would be ideal. BUT since we are already being forced to wear face masks in public, then yes, but at the very least give everyone complimentary (free) N95 respirator face masks if we REALLY care about the survival of homo-sapiens species. (Humans. Us.)

J>J  Jawapan peribadiNo, only legal tax paying citizens and foreigners who have citizenship who also pay taxes should be allowed to vote unless said illegal foreigner has been living in the country for 15 years, which should get them their citizenship, or alternatively, to get their citizenship much sooner, serve in the U.S. military for at least 1 year, which will also earn them their citizenship. Once and if a foreigner has citizenship they should be allowed to vote.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiThe minimum wage was started to put a limit on how low to pay the young workers. In todays time, more and more single parents, senior citizens, and college students are working skilled jobs at minimum wage rates. Instead of raising minimum wage, we should reclassify what a minimum wage job is. Furthermore, we should establish minimum wage rates for different age groups, and have a tier system that classifies each job in tiers. Each tier's minimum rage should go up to the last tiers highest wage. Having 3-4 tiers in each age group would reduce the number of people at or under the poverty line, it will create better workers, and allow for less turn over. It will also reduce the number of unemployed workers. Jobs such as fast food, retail, gas station attendants etc, would be worked mainly by high school and college students, leaving more skilled jobs for working adults. -Some Libertarian who's name isn't listed.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiIncrease, because with higher spending on the military, troops can undergo better training, getting access to better-made equipment, consisting of, each having additional benefits, being deadlier weapons that jam less, stronger, more durable armor, and more effective, more controlled equipment. These things will also help us defend against attacks more easily.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiTidak, kita harus meneruskan sumber tenaga yang lebih mampan

J>J  Jawapan peribadiTidak, menangkap, menginterogasi, dan memenjarakannya

J>J  Jawapan peribadiYes, but only upon completion of their sentences and parole/probation, and only if they weren't convicted of violent crimes such as murder, unless, of course, they were proven to be innocent, either during the initial trial, any subsequent trials, or mid-sentence.

J>J  Jawapan peribadiNo, but instead increase the funding and training for police departments everywhere around the U.S. to help lower the total countrywide crime rate.