Justin Paglino

Strongly Disagree

Medical Decisions, including abortion, are private decisions between a patient and their physician. Legislative bodies are not qualified to make medical decisions that should be made by a qualified doctor. Patient's medical privacy must be respected and their decisions respected.

Strongly Agree

Aid in dying laws are essential humanitarian laws that allow patients to die with dignity in situations where they are mentally competent to make that personal decision, with the counsel of their qualified physician.

Abortion is healthcare, and it should be allowed in any circumstance in which doctor and their patient decide together, in private, that it is the correct decision for that individual.

Disagree

We live in a land of religious liberty which is as it should be. Government does not prohibit anyone from practicing any religion of their choice.

Disagree

In the Jim Crow era, many restauranteurs and other small business owners decided it was against their moral beliefs to serve African Americans. We know the history of American businesses putting out signs such as "No Irish Need Apply." Today we recognize this kind of behavior is a violation of civil rights. We also know that business owners have the right to fire employees who do not perform their work, or refuse customers who disrupt their business. There is some gray area in the middle.

The state must protect religious liberty by never outlawing or penalizing a religion, or favoring any particular religion over another in any way.

C. We are far too involved militarily in conflicts that do not directly concern us. Often these military interventions are driven by an economic strategy to secure access to resources such as oil, or to 'open markets' for the benefit of multinational corporations. We have a history of intervening in the internal affairs of foreign countries all over the world, typically favoring the government that will be 'best for business.' These interventions, besides being costly in terms of American blood and treasure, are simply immoral because they are carried out for our own self interest and not in the interest of what is best for the people of the country. Iraq is a prime example, but there are innumerable comparable examples. Our sanctions against Venezuela cause poverty and have no justification - they are in place only to try and coerce a business-friendly government into power. These two examples are typical of our behavior on the international stage. Often the consequences end up being a net loss for America in any case, because of unforseen 'blowback,' but overall they have been profitable for major businesses. This is no justification for them whatsoever. Our military should be employed only under absolutely necessary circumstances - particularly if necessary to defend our territory. Many of our past military conquests remain unresolved today: residents of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and other US 'territories' should be given full citizenship including representation in Congress. Or if they wish, independence.

Disagree

We should be pressuring Israel to withdraw from occupied territories, remove the separation barriers in the West Bank, and allow full equality for Palestinians in Israel, and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees, however economic sanctions hurt the people more than the government. We have other tools at our disposal that we never use. Military aid to Israel should be ceased and its reinstatement be made conditional on resolution of Palestinian statehood - I favor a one-state solution.

Strongly Disagree

The Chinese government is in charge of China. I'm sure there are business leaders who worry about 'economic threats,' but they are not the American people's concern. Our concern is peace.

Our dependence on middle Eastern oil has led to support for the unspeakable repressive Saudi dictatorship, which funds Wahabbi schools of violent extremism. We need to transition to a fully renewable-powered economy that does not require fossil fuels, which are a finite resource whose combustion is putting the well being of all Earth's inhabitants in peril. Rather than using our power to manipulate or force governments into adopting the policies favorable to our economy, we should be promoting democracy and liberty and human rights across the world, not by force but by diplomacy. The attacks of 9/11 were committed by Saudi nationals who objected to our military presence in Saudi Arabia. We would have no presence in Saudi Arabia if not for our dependence on oil and our willingness to do almost anything to keep our access to it. Our 'friendship' with Saudi Arabia is but one example of how our self-interested foreign policy creates 'blowback,' showing how our complete disregard for human rights can create enemies.

There is a delicate balance between individual liberty and public health and safety. We outlaw behaviors that pose a threat to the public health and safety even if no particular individual is being targeted, for example we require businesses to provide a safe and healthy work environment with numerous laws and regulations such as the fire-safety regulations and safety precaution requirements in dangerous occupations. In the realm of viral vaccination, the balance between an individual's liberty and the threat they might pose to others is a difficult balance. In some regions where measles vaccination rates in schools we have seen outbreaks that can threaten the health and lives of even the vaccinated. Still medical privacy and autonomy is an extremely important right that must not be violated except under the most extreme of public health justifications. When it comes to vaccines, the issue must be looked at based on available science on a case by case basis. The important questions are: is the vaccine proposed to be required well known by established robust science to be of negligible risk to the recipient? Will a voluntary vaccination policy be sufficient to adequately protect public health? These are never easy questions and must be deliberated with the benefit of the best available scientific knowledge. I did not favor required COVID vaccinations, because I feel these conditions were not met. If we are to err, we should err on the side of personal liberty and medical privacy. But we must do our best not to err.

A. I support comprehensive single payer universal health insurance. We have over 70,000 deaths every year from lack of insurance, all unecessary. The profit motive is anathema to public services that all citizens should be equally entitled to, morally. Almost all studies of the cost conclude that single payer insurance will save up to 15% compared to our current healthcare spending. We should have universal insurance without premiums, deductibles, or co-pays. Not only will it save lives and improve health, it will save hundreds of billions of dollars every year. We cannot afford to keep our current system, we are paying too much and getting too little. The program should be funded by a progressive income tax, not the regressive FICA tax.

Strongly Agree

Left unchecked, without any intervention, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. We all know this to be the case, do we not? And yet, we sometimes forget that this is the clear and rational justification for progressive income taxes, and for providing services to the poor and disadvantaged. Currently the bottom 50% of Americans own 2% of the wealth, down from 4% only a few years ago. This is an immoral an untenable state of affairs.

Strongly Agree

Our pentagon budget is absolutely and obscenely overblown. At over $750 billion dollars every year, our military spending is driving us into untenable debt. This overgrown budget is what Dwight D. Eisenhower was worried about when he warned that "we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." The enormous political contributions of military contractors drive this problem because politicians depend on them.

It is a sign of our government's corruption and subservience to wealthy donors that we tax passive income at a lower rate than active income. It defies justification that we tax income from stock and bond investments, income that requires no work, at a lower rate than we tax income from labor. We should close the carried interest loophole. We should institute a 'Robin Hood Tax" on stock transactions to reduce "casino" trading that destabilizes the stock market. Federal revenue should derive primarily if not exclusively from a progressive personal income tax. I would prefer to see this be the primary if not sole source of federal tax revenue: I would do away with FICA taxes, which are regressive taxes (the tax rate is higher for lower income earners). I would do away with corporate taxes as well, which would allow businesses to grow and invest in themselves. We should provide all Americans with a Universal Basic Income, funded with a Carbon Tax.

Disagree

Immigration can be handled by better accounting of who is being hired illegally. When we put a stop to illegal hiring, we control immigration.

Neutral

Temporary visas should be generously offered to anyone who has secured employment in the United States. A pathway to Citizenship for workers on temporary visas should be available.

Disagree

Qualified immunity has gone too far in shielding police guilty of crimes.

Agree

Police in many cases are over-supplied with military-grade weaponry. I support funding the police with what they need, including body cams, de-escalation training, and non-lethal weapons.

In addition to banning assault weapons, we need red-flag laws to ensure that those convicted of violent crimes not be in possession of firearms. Guns ownership should require a background check and licensing and mandatory training in safe use and storage.

Neutral

Only if there was a defect with the gun. Usually gun violence victims, if still alive, are injured due to the gun functioning properly.

Very Liberal

I am proud to consider myself very liberal, which to me means that I believe strongly in economic justice, social justice, civil liberties, and non-violence.

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/article/green_runs_again_to_push_single_payer https://ballotpedia.org/Justin_Paglino https://www.wicc600.com/2022/10/18/joe-aguiar-the-alternative-parties/

No.

The Green Party represents progressive eco-socialist values. We are the political arm of the peace movement, the economic justice movement, the social justice movement, and the environmental movement - if you are interested, please come join us! http://gp.org

Strongly Agree

Neutral

The wording of this question reflects an oversimplification of the tenets of CRT, which holds that SOME of our countries racism has been institutionalized. It is a complicated graduate level area of study that I have not studied.

I am non-theistic but have many theistic friends whose beliefs I respect.

Strongly Agree

Many voters do not have easy access to photo identification, particularly many non-driving citizens whether they be young or old.

We need Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Our country is sharply divided because of our plurality voting system, which creates a stigma against third party candidates who become seen as 'spoilers.' Australia has used RCV for over 100 years and has a much greater diversity of parties represented in their legislature. John Adams said that 'a division of the Republic into two great parties.. is to be feared as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." He foresaw the problems we have today, which are glaring, but he had no solution because RCV had not yet been invented. The two party system encourages negative campaigning over consensus seeking. It discourages voters from feeling free to vote their true preferences, which in turn discourages voters from wanting to vote at all. The unrepresentative nature of our elections is leading to a widespread feeling that our representatives don't really represent us, which is fueling a frighting increase in support of authoritarianism as an alternative system of government. With RCV, we can have multiparty democracy and each person can support the party they truly support, not the one the feel is the least bad of only two options. It is recommended by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and election experts across the political spectrum.

Disagree

The long history of discrimination against people of color cannot be undone, but it can be made up for. This is, however, difficult to put into practice based on race, which is not clearly definable. However we can put in place economic policies to support the poor in general, and we should.

We see race-motivated crimes against minorities. I don't think they are prevalent enough to be called a 'domestic security threat,' but we should be motivated to end racism and racial violence.

Strongly Disagree

Fracking reveals our desperation for fossil fuels: we are at the point of 'bleeding' them out of rock. This process requires the injection of a cocktail of chemicals into the ground that are toxic and carcinogenic. We desperately need to learn to live without fossil fuels. They are a finite resource, as evidenced by the need for fracking to obtain them in modern times: in earlier decades oil flowed freely from drilled wells on land - now we turn to desperate measures.

B. If we don't pay now, we pay later, but 100 fold. Climate change represents an economic threat almost beyond comprehension. So much of our infrastructure is near sea level. Hurricane Sandy won't be the last storm to flood the subways of NYC. The total annual cost of recovering from 'natural' disasters has been rising dramatically in recent years, but this is only the beginning. Our food supply depends on the climate being as it is. We must be smart and do what must be done - decarbonize our economy entirely, as soon as humanly possible. I propose a Carbon Tax and Dividend, in other words put a price on carbon to discourage fossil fuel use, but distribute the revenue equally among Americans and a universal income to offset the increased cost of goods and services that will result. It's a win-win. Decarbonizing will require enormous amounts of work, making it possible to establish a "Climate Corps" to employ hundreds of thousands of Americans.