Tiffany L. Bond

Strongly Disagree

Providing funds to support access to care does not mean that we should get to dictate the specific care each patient receives. It is not the government's role to impose the philosophical beliefs of one group of people onto other by inserting itself between doctors and patients. It is no more appropriate for the government to deny abortion care when wanted by a patient than to demand patients receive abortion care when not wanted by that patient.

Strongly Disagree

Providing funds to support access to care does not mean that we should get to dictate the specific care each patient receives. It is not the government's role to impose the philosophical beliefs of one group of people onto other by inserting itself between doctors and patients. It is no more appropriate for the government to deny abortion care when wanted by a patient than to demand patients receive abortion care when not wanted by that patient.

Agree

We should all have the freedom to decide how much pain we wish to endure if we receive a terminal diagnosis - whether that means trying all reasonable avenues for treatment, or choosing to peacefully decline to experience such treatments.

Agree

We should all have the freedom to decide how much pain we wish to endure if we receive a terminal diagnosis - whether that means trying all reasonable avenues for treatment, or choosing to peacefully decline to experience such treatments.

Abortion should not be legislated beyond determining if procedures are safe for the patient. There is no one in government who can make medical decisions better for people than they can make for themselves. It's absolute nonsense that we have permitted private medical decisions to be both politicized and weaponized when they are not anyone else's business. Legislating medical decisions such as abortion care causes immense harm. For example, it is truly abhorrent that people who are elected to represent us have cashed in by convincing voters that late-term abortions are bunch of heartless harlots willy-nilly murdering babies, when instead those are very wanted children in entirely gut-wrenching situations where grieving parents are mourning the death of a child, a child incompatible with life (or the humane end to what would otherwise only be a life of minutes to weeks of excruciating pain) and/or the only chance to save the life of a mother. Shame on every politician who has refused to stand as a buffer to protect these people’s lives from being further shattered by red tape that causes more pain and needless deaths. We are seeing horror stories around the country where pregnancies are forced to continue for babies with conditions like anencephaly (part or all of the brain/scull is missing), dead babies, and pregnancy itself becoming a death sentence when legislation forces the choices from patient and doctor to insurance companies and lawyers. What an embarrassment to the role of representative to try to get voters to believe they are protecting babies with poorly drafted, invasive legislation that doesn’t ever put the life of the baby first, and causes pain, suffering, and needless death to grieving parents. (example: https://twitter.com/TiffanyBond/status/957729914895110149) We should all be *very* concerned with the government asserting authority over this domain of our lives. The government having power to restrict abortion is the same as giving the government power to force abortion, which has been used globally for policies such as "one child" policies and to punish unpopular minorities. This is best left as a medical decision guided by the circumstances, conscience, and faith of the patient. Government has no business in this business.

Abortion should not be legislated beyond determining if procedures are safe for the patient. There is no one in government who can make medical decisions better for people than they can make for themselves. It's absolute nonsense that we have permitted private medical decisions to be both politicized and weaponized when they are not anyone else's business. Legislating medical decisions such as abortion care causes immense harm. For example, it is truly abhorrent that people who are elected to represent us have cashed in by convincing voters that late-term abortions are bunch of heartless harlots willy-nilly murdering babies, when instead those are very wanted children in entirely gut-wrenching situations where grieving parents are mourning the death of a child, a child incompatible with life (or the humane end to what would otherwise only be a life of minutes to weeks of excruciating pain) and/or the only chance to save the life of a mother. Shame on every politician who has refused to stand as a buffer to protect these people’s lives from being further shattered by red tape that causes more pain and needless deaths. We are seeing horror stories around the country where pregnancies are forced to continue for babies with conditions like anencephaly (part or all of the brain/scull is missing), dead babies, and pregnancy itself becoming a death sentence when legislation forces the choices from patient and doctor to insurance companies and lawyers. What an embarrassment to the role of representative to try to get voters to believe they are protecting babies with poorly drafted, invasive legislation that doesn’t ever put the life of the baby first, and causes pain, suffering, and needless death to grieving parents. (example: https://twitter.com/TiffanyBond/status/957729914895110149) We should all be *very* concerned with the government asserting authority over this domain of our lives. The government having power to restrict abortion is the same as giving the government power to force abortion, which has been used globally for policies such as "one child" policies and to punish unpopular minorities. This is best left as a medical decision guided by the circumstances, conscience, and faith of the patient. Government has no business in this business.

Choose not to answer

This is a poorly worded statement. An appropriate tax code supports each income bracket pay their fair share, and provide supports to make sure our vulnerable don't fall through the cracks. The costs of society need to be distributed fairly, which will give those in lower tax brackets the opportunity to grow their resources and a fair shot at success. Having an appropriate tax code naturally lessens the wealth gap by equitably distributing opportunity.

Choose not to answer

This is a poorly worded statement. An appropriate tax code supports each income bracket pay their fair share, and provide supports to make sure our vulnerable don't fall through the cracks. The costs of society need to be distributed fairly, which will give those in lower tax brackets the opportunity to grow their resources and a fair shot at success. Having an appropriate tax code naturally lessens the wealth gap by equitably distributing opportunity.

Neutral

This is the wrong approach. The government should evaluate spending for return on investment rather than mere "spending". All dollars spent are not the same. For example, many investments in social safety programs generate more revenue than they "cost"; which is a wise and judicious spending strategy. Though cutting spending may be the answer for some programs, this is a shallow approach without the above. Cite: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

Neutral

This is the wrong approach. The government should evaluate spending for return on investment rather than mere "spending". All dollars spent are not the same. For example, many investments in social safety programs generate more revenue than they "cost"; which is a wise and judicious spending strategy. Though cutting spending may be the answer for some programs, this is a shallow approach without the above. Cite: https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-safety-net-pays-for-itself-11563800405

Our tax code is littered with highly-specific deductions so that folks in Congress can create marketing materials bragging about exemptions that few can use and/or benefits for wealthy donors. It needs a head-to-toe overhaul to make sure everyone pays their fair share and exemptions offered are targeted to goals and measured regularly to ensure those goals are the actual outcome of the goals, and/or to fix unfair tax consequences*. *As an example, shifting taxation of spousal support to be paid by the person who has the income to spend, instead of taxing the income at the higher rate of the person who earns the funds but must pay what is essentially severance pay for contributions to the former marriage; a business would be entitled to such payments as a tax deduction since it is income not available as profits to the business.

Our tax code is littered with highly-specific deductions so that folks in Congress can create marketing materials bragging about exemptions that few can use and/or benefits for wealthy donors. It needs a head-to-toe overhaul to make sure everyone pays their fair share and exemptions offered are targeted to goals and measured regularly to ensure those goals are the actual outcome of the goals, and/or to fix unfair tax consequences*. *As an example, shifting taxation of spousal support to be paid by the person who has the income to spend, instead of taxing the income at the higher rate of the person who earns the funds but must pay what is essentially severance pay for contributions to the former marriage; a business would be entitled to such payments as a tax deduction since it is income not available as profits to the business.

Agree

The issue at hand is religious liberty includes all religions, including freedom from religion. There has been an inappropriate push to assert certain religions as preferential - it's all dandy until the religion that prevails isn't yours. We need to preserve our ability to respect the religious/philosophical views of others with a framework that allows us to have our own beliefs.

Agree

The issue at hand is religious liberty includes all religions, including freedom from religion. There has been an inappropriate push to assert certain religions as preferential - it's all dandy until the religion that prevails isn't yours. We need to preserve our ability to respect the religious/philosophical views of others with a framework that allows us to have our own beliefs.

Choose not to answer

It depends. Discrimination against protected classes in not acceptable. However, I do not think that individuals in small, private business that require a close and lengthy relationship should be forced to work with those they find objectionable.

Choose not to answer

It depends. Discrimination against protected classes in not acceptable. However, I do not think that individuals in small, private business that require a close and lengthy relationship should be forced to work with those they find objectionable.

The church and state should be entirely separate. When the government meddles in churches, oppression occurs. When a church decides to meddle in the state, oppression occurs.

The church and state should be entirely separate. When the government meddles in churches, oppression occurs. When a church decides to meddle in the state, oppression occurs.

This isn't a question for federal law; this is a question for state law.

This isn't a question for federal law; this is a question for state law.

Our healthcare system is currently a nightmare. We should test several models to see which gives us the best return on investment, and the widest reasonable access. I suspect this would be a universal-hybrid system, but I do not currently have access to CBO scoring to more adequately assess this. The ACA helped many people, but it also has created an immense pain-point for those above poverty wages but without access to employer-provided care (self-employed, unreasonably-priced employer coverage, etc). Our family spent years paying premiums we couldn't afford for insurance we couldn't afford to use. We should all have access to use care at a rate we can afford, and we collectively pay more than enough to make that happen now - we are paying too much in profits, and not enough in care.

Our healthcare system is currently a nightmare. We should test several models to see which gives us the best return on investment, and the widest reasonable access. I suspect this would be a universal-hybrid system, but I do not currently have access to CBO scoring to more adequately assess this. The ACA helped many people, but it also has created an immense pain-point for those above poverty wages but without access to employer-provided care (self-employed, unreasonably-priced employer coverage, etc). Our family spent years paying premiums we couldn't afford for insurance we couldn't afford to use. We should all have access to use care at a rate we can afford, and we collectively pay more than enough to make that happen now - we are paying too much in profits, and not enough in care.

B-C

B-C

Choose not to answer

This question doesn't ask what the law should be, which is the question that should be asked. I support us all having the right to spend or not spend, and encourage others to spend or not spend as we see fit. Anything else would be in conflict with the First Amendment.

Choose not to answer

This question doesn't ask what the law should be, which is the question that should be asked. I support us all having the right to spend or not spend, and encourage others to spend or not spend as we see fit. Anything else would be in conflict with the First Amendment.

Agree

We are both intertwined and at odds with China.

Agree

We are both intertwined and at odds with China.

We need a consistent stance on terrorism no matter what the cause, and to focus only on one genre (particularly one that isn't our current greatest threat) does a tremendous disservice to the safety of our citizens.

We need a consistent stance on terrorism no matter what the cause, and to focus only on one genre (particularly one that isn't our current greatest threat) does a tremendous disservice to the safety of our citizens.

Choose not to answer

This is the wrong question. The proper answer is that we need to use best available means and technologies to secure our border. We have not been as effective as we can because have spent the past few years focusing on physical barriers when other technology is more effective, more fiscally prudent, easier/less expensive/more effective to maintain, and easier to upgrade.

Choose not to answer

This is the wrong question. The proper answer is that we need to use best available means and technologies to secure our border. We have not been as effective as we can because have spent the past few years focusing on physical barriers when other technology is more effective, more fiscally prudent, easier/less expensive/more effective to maintain, and easier to upgrade.

Choose not to answer

Our immigration laws are a mess because both parties have spent decades kicking the can and allowing issues to fester. We need to fix the problem before punishing cities from seeking solutions specific to their population borne from legislative neglect.

Choose not to answer

Our immigration laws are a mess because both parties have spent decades kicking the can and allowing issues to fester. We need to fix the problem before punishing cities from seeking solutions specific to their population borne from legislative neglect.

Absent safety concerns, we should extend immigrants the same opportunities afforded to our own families over the decades with a reasonable process and timeframe.

Absent safety concerns, we should extend immigrants the same opportunities afforded to our own families over the decades with a reasonable process and timeframe.

Strongly Agree

We should not discriminate for situations over which people have no control and that do no harm to others.

Strongly Agree

We should not discriminate for situations over which people have no control and that do no harm to others.

Choose not to answer

This is not the right statement to determine a candidate's fitness. CRT is a graduate-level and professional theory. In graduate school settings and professional application, we should evaluate policy from several lenses, and CRT has a place in those evaluations. It is true that US institutions have been racist and the only way to make sure we've rooted that out is to look through that lens (we should also evaluate policy by *several* lenses - fiscal prudence, efficacy at stated goals, etc).

Choose not to answer

This is not the right statement to determine a candidate's fitness. CRT is a graduate-level and professional theory. In graduate school settings and professional application, we should evaluate policy from several lenses, and CRT has a place in those evaluations. It is true that US institutions have been racist and the only way to make sure we've rooted that out is to look through that lens (we should also evaluate policy by *several* lenses - fiscal prudence, efficacy at stated goals, etc).

My values are that the scaffolding for our society should not be built around my personal spiritual beliefs; we should use a foundation that allows each person that freedom. Government's role should be to make wise shared purchasing decisions on our behalf, legislate at the level most appropriate to the issue, help us solve problems collectively that are too big for us to solve individually, and allow us to solve problems individually that are not government business. We should elect kind, thoughtful, trustworthy people concerned with making sure we have a system that balances checks with freedoms, is fiscally prudent, and mindful of basic human rights.

My values are that the scaffolding for our society should not be built around my personal spiritual beliefs; we should use a foundation that allows each person that freedom. Government's role should be to make wise shared purchasing decisions on our behalf, legislate at the level most appropriate to the issue, help us solve problems collectively that are too big for us to solve individually, and allow us to solve problems individually that are not government business. We should elect kind, thoughtful, trustworthy people concerned with making sure we have a system that balances checks with freedoms, is fiscally prudent, and mindful of basic human rights.

Choose not to answer

This is the wrong statement to evaluate a candidate. We need to make sure that only those eligible vote, and that everyone who is eligible can vote without undue burden.

Choose not to answer

This is the wrong statement to evaluate a candidate. We need to make sure that only those eligible vote, and that everyone who is eligible can vote without undue burden.

We should have a US Constitutional Amendment that mirrors Maine's constitutional right to vote. That has pushed Maine to have some of the most fair, easy, trustworthy voting in the country.

We should have a US Constitutional Amendment that mirrors Maine's constitutional right to vote. That has pushed Maine to have some of the most fair, easy, trustworthy voting in the country.

Choose not to answer

I need to mull this further. I was raised to believe that if you break something, you fix it. Our government has done a lot of harm over the centuries. We have such a messy history that it is unclear what depth and scope would be fair to those who have not engaged in such behavior in the past, while making whole those who still suffer the consequences of those who did when in a position of public trust on our behalf.

Choose not to answer

I need to mull this further. I was raised to believe that if you break something, you fix it. Our government has done a lot of harm over the centuries. We have such a messy history that it is unclear what depth and scope would be fair to those who have not engaged in such behavior in the past, while making whole those who still suffer the consequences of those who did when in a position of public trust on our behalf.

Yes - as is extremism in a variety of genres. Pretending it is not only allows the problem to fester and grow. We all deserve for each member of our community to feel safe in our community.

Yes - as is extremism in a variety of genres. Pretending it is not only allows the problem to fester and grow. We all deserve for each member of our community to feel safe in our community.

Strongly Disagree

These are not mutually exclusive options. Better laws to safeguard our communities - if done well, balancing red tape with results - can create better jobs and good stewardship of our environment. Shame on politicians for trying to tell us we can only have one of these options. We should expect those who are interviewing for the job to not sacrifice honesty for fundraising potential.

Strongly Disagree

These are not mutually exclusive options. Better laws to safeguard our communities - if done well, balancing red tape with results - can create better jobs and good stewardship of our environment. Shame on politicians for trying to tell us we can only have one of these options. We should expect those who are interviewing for the job to not sacrifice honesty for fundraising potential.

Moderate

I don't aim for liberal or conservative; I try to point my compass north. The moderate option is to take the resources and timeline needed to resolve an issue, add a little buffer, and create a solution in that budget/timeframe. Unfortunately, we've had decades of legislative neglect, so we'd best send folks mindful of time and money. 500 characters is not enough to address the rest with detail. Short version: be kind, be mindful of short and long term consequences, don't needlessly be a jerk.

A variety of interviews, debates, and podcasts reaching back to 2018 can be found on my youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/tiffanybond Further reading can be found on my website with links to outside sources here: https://bond4.me/in-the-news/ Consistent, voluminous, time-stamped opinions on current events reaching back to 2017 can be found on twitter by using the search feature with: @tiffanybond + [issue/topic] If you want to know how I process information, I have provided work samples on reading bills here: https://twitter.com/i/events/966671466648555520 If you have questions, I do two virtual town halls almost every week until the election on youtube on Tuesdays at 7pm, and Saturdays at 8am. These are unscripted and have live Q&A , and are archived for later viewing.

Moderate

I don't aim for liberal or conservative; I try to point my compass north. The moderate option is to take the resources and timeline needed to resolve an issue, add a little buffer, and create a solution in that budget/timeframe. Unfortunately, we've had decades of legislative neglect, so we'd best send folks mindful of time and money. 500 characters is not enough to address the rest with detail. Short version: be kind, be mindful of short and long term consequences, don't needlessly be a jerk.

No.

A variety of interviews, debates, and podcasts reaching back to 2018 can be found on my youtube page: https://www.youtube.com/tiffanybond Further reading can be found on my website with links to outside sources here: https://bond4.me/in-the-news/ Consistent, voluminous, time-stamped opinions on current events reaching back to 2017 can be found on twitter by using the search feature with: @tiffanybond + [issue/topic] If you want to know how I process information, I have provided work samples on reading bills here: https://twitter.com/i/events/966671466648555520 If you have questions, I do two virtual town halls almost every week until the election on youtube on Tuesdays at 7pm, and Saturdays at 8am. These are unscripted and have live Q&A , and are archived for later viewing.

We should send reasonable, decent, kind people to make laws. Avoid candidates who try to convince you to hate others, particularly when combined with a fundraising request. If a candidate tells you they want to put resources in the community - demand they actually do it, don't let them spend millions of dollars of other people's hard-earned money telling you that they might do it someday if you vote for them. (see: www.bond4.me/maineraising) Good representatives challenge things that seem too easy, they read past the title of a bill to see what nonsense has gotten jammed in, they tell you the truth instead of what they think might make you like them more, and they stand up for the vulnerable - even when it's not popular or profitable to do so. Remember, you might be the vulnerable one day - we are all only one bad moment away from it. We have a failing safety net that we have paid for with our hard-earned wages that is ineffective and has been pilfered by politicians' greedy self-interest. Don't fall for people who try to rile you up without any substance. Do look for those who can disagree with grace, and use productive disagreements to find a better outcome for everyone. Find candidates who thank you for the gift of feedback, and can see the world from more views than only their own. Ask yourself - did Poliquin or Golden take the time to personally answer your questions thoroughly and thoughtfully...or at all?

No.

We should send reasonable, decent, kind people to make laws. Avoid candidates who try to convince you to hate others, particularly when combined with a fundraising request. If a candidate tells you they want to put resources in the community - demand they actually do it, don't let them spend millions of dollars of other people's hard-earned money telling you that they might do it someday if you vote for them. (see: www.bond4.me/maineraising) Good representatives challenge things that seem too easy, they read past the title of a bill to see what nonsense has gotten jammed in, they tell you the truth instead of what they think might make you like them more, and they stand up for the vulnerable - even when it's not popular or profitable to do so. Remember, you might be the vulnerable one day - we are all only one bad moment away from it. We have a failing safety net that we have paid for with our hard-earned wages that is ineffective and has been pilfered by politicians' greedy self-interest. Don't fall for people who try to rile you up without any substance. Do look for those who can disagree with grace, and use productive disagreements to find a better outcome for everyone. Find candidates who thank you for the gift of feedback, and can see the world from more views than only their own. Ask yourself - did Poliquin or Golden take the time to personally answer your questions thoroughly and thoughtfully...or at all?

Choose not to answer

This is poorly-worded. Qualified immunity is not the same thing as personal immunity from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy. I do think there should be consideration for the role and compliance with policy. However, and unfortunately, qualified immunity has out-lived its usefulness and instead permits police officers to act far beyond the boundaries of departmental policy with immunity. No one in public trust should be beyond consequences for violating that trust.

Choose not to answer

This is a poor statement choice. Right now police departments often are forced to work beyond their budget and outside of the scope of their role (and training). Stop under-funding effective programs and forcing police into these situations, and make sure the laws reflect what we need our laws to do - that way police can do actual police work that is beneficial, they are not forced into roles they don't like and aren't trained for, citizens get the help they need, and we all pay less in taxes.

Choose not to answer

This is poorly-worded. Qualified immunity is not the same thing as personal immunity from prosecution for conduct consistent with departmental policy. I do think there should be consideration for the role and compliance with policy. However, and unfortunately, qualified immunity has out-lived its usefulness and instead permits police officers to act far beyond the boundaries of departmental policy with immunity. No one in public trust should be beyond consequences for violating that trust.

Choose not to answer

This is a poor statement choice. Right now police departments often are forced to work beyond their budget and outside of the scope of their role (and training). Stop under-funding effective programs and forcing police into these situations, and make sure the laws reflect what we need our laws to do - that way police can do actual police work that is beneficial, they are not forced into roles they don't like and aren't trained for, citizens get the help they need, and we all pay less in taxes.

We have a whole lot of work to do getting federal/state/local laws to work with each other, particularly with domestic violence. We also would likely benefit from reasonable, common sense laws so that responsible gun owners don't get left holding the bag for irresponsible gun owners. Finally, we probably should have well-crafted, functional red flag laws. My children would likely have one more grandfather alive if we did.

Choose not to answer

It really depends on the factors of the case, but I think that blanket prohibitions on lawsuits usually cause injustice.

We have a whole lot of work to do getting federal/state/local laws to work with each other, particularly with domestic violence. We also would likely benefit from reasonable, common sense laws so that responsible gun owners don't get left holding the bag for irresponsible gun owners. Finally, we probably should have well-crafted, functional red flag laws. My children would likely have one more grandfather alive if we did.

Choose not to answer

It really depends on the factors of the case, but I think that blanket prohibitions on lawsuits usually cause injustice.