George Davis

Choose not to answer

If I were a politician, I would lie my you know what off. I do not know how I will handle abortion issue. If elected, it is my job to vote on the issues. If a person does not want to vote on the issues, they should not run for office. My personal belief is that life begins at conception. But how do I tell a rape victim that they must carry their rapist baby, and if we allow abortion for rape victims, we are killing an innocent baby for the sins of the father. Someone gets hurt.

Choose not to answer

I do not know. I had a friend whose mother was terminally ill and in pain. She kept asking them to kill her. I saw what it did to the family.

I do not know. Same answer as the other abortion issue.

Disagree

First get correct data. The government compares the person on total public assistance with that of a doctor. If you compare people in the same job there is still a income gap, but it is much smaller. During a press conference, even the Obama administration had to correct the data from Labor Depart showing a wage gap for people working in the White House. When corrected, there still was a wage gap, but it was much smaller.

Strongly Agree

Yes. There is too much waste. Part of this is Congresses fault. They order the government to buy thing from a particular district that the government does not need. The Congressmen or Senator wants it to happen because it helps their district. We all heard of the bridge to nowhere.

If you look at the tax code, you see how big it is. This needs to be examined carefully, but there is one that I would like changed. Taxes are paid by a company when a profit is made and then paid by the shareholder.

Strongly Agree

It needs to be protected, but there are limits. If violence is preached, then it happens, the ones responsible should be held accountable. This a rear case, so religious freedom should be protected until it interferes with someone else’s rights. Your rights end where someone else’s rights begin. How do you know that point? What is the overt act. Whoever is doing the overt act is the one infringes on someone else’s right.

Disagree

No but there are exceptions. Government services and goods and services that are supplied by one few companies. Such as utilities. But if an employee does not wish to provide services but the owner wants to provide services, the employee can be fired. Hopefully this will not happen, but the owner owns the company, not the employee.

The church has the same rights as a person, they can criticize the government as much as they want. The state should treat the church as a company or person. They neither support or deny the churches actions, but they also do not punish the church because they are a church. If the church bids on a contract, and meets the conditions of the contract, the state should not deny the contract to the church just because they are a church.

Covid regulations is opposite of that governing AIDS and Tuberculosis. With Covid the rules are that privacy can be violated for public safety, but AIDS and Tuberculosis privacy is more important than public safety. Go one way or another, but the current regulations is Because I Say so, and that should not happen. If an employer or government requires vaccination, and there are complications, the government or company must take full responsibility for those complications. With Covid, no one takes responsibility. If a person develops side effects from the vaccination, they are responsible, and they cannot sue the manufacturer.

Countries that tried universal health care went bankrupt in 40 years due to the costs. Obamacare is going to charge a lot more next year unless the government gives the insurance more money. Obamacare took the worst of these policies and put them into Obamacare. Germany is the only country that has universal health care that does not bankrupt the country. We should of copied their health care system.

The United States should help only if the people ask for help. We should make sure that people are not being oppressed but should not interfere unless the United States or its allies are threatened. We do not assist them if they oppress their people, but at the same time we may need to do business with them if it keeps them in check. But the people eventually win out. Look at Russia and China where they were after WWII and where they are now. They still need a ways to go on human rights but they are getting there slowly.

Agree

Whoever starts a war should not benefit from the war. Most likely the Arab countries would of started a was within a few days of when Israel started the war, but if you look at history, the Arab countries were looking for someone to tell them they could not go through with it. Every demand that the Arab countries put to the UN and the world so they could fight a war was granted.

Agree

In military action, China could hurt the United States, but we would hurt China more. We must stop them in cyber security and intellectual property threat, but their greatest threat to the United States is their economics. China owns most if the world supply of certain rear materials that a lot of the developed worlds technology needs. If China were to stop any country from getting those materials, it could destabilize any nation. We need to secure our own non-China sources.

Unfortunately, history shows that we will not eradicate the nut jobs. When you get rid of one another one pops up. The best you can do is fight them when they do pop up. You must wait until their own actions destroy them from within, and that usually takes a long time.

Strongly Agree

Yes, if you look at the border how many criminals are coming across and how much drugs are coming across. If you want to let the people that are willing to work is one thing, but the killers, rapists, drug dealers, and so forth need to stay out. The United States has more than their share of criminals, we do not need any more. Look at how many ODs have occurred because drugs are easier to come by. Cities are raising taxes to deal with illegal immigrants. We got problems.

Agree

If a city wants to be a sanctuary city, they have to do it with their own funds. Also, they have to make sure that they are not doing criminal activity while in the United States. Federal fund should not go for breaking federal law. If the city want to take the responsibility of the illegal immigrants then we can talk, so if the illegal immigrant commits a crime the city will be help But right now the sanctuary cities want the federal government to pay them and they take no responsibility.

If a person wants to come to the United States, they need to show that they are finically able to cover all of their expenses for several years, or they need a sponsor. The sponsor can be a person or a company that needs them as an employee. The person or company states they have the funds for their stay or that they plan on paying them for their services that would cover their expenses. If they want to be a US Citizen, they can spend 6 years in the US military. After that they will be granted US Citizenship. Go to my website for a detailed explanation.

Disagree

A protected class is not needed. A protected class states they get more protections than everyone else, and that is wrong. If a person announces that they have a gender identity change they are greeted as heroes, but if a person announces that they are the gender as they were born, they are called haters. Why can you only be proud if you fight tradition and condemned if you like who you are.

Strongly Agree

No 80% to 90% of the so-called racism in this country is false. When ever a population is oppressed, a certain percentage will move. Cuba is supposed to be this great nation without racism yet how many people moved to Cuba? None. How many people moved from one city to another because the city they left behind was racist. None. The black population is telling everyone that CRT is a lie by their own actions. If you look at most so called racism, it does not exits, but it manualiter for racism

I am catholic. Sometimes the church personnel let me down, but God does not.

Disagree

No. If you do not need any ID for voting, then you do not need ID to go to court or need ID for any government activity. Obama spent over $1,000,000,000 in his campaign. We almost have riots over a candidate won instead of his opponent. With that much money and emotion some people will cheat. Also, officially, there is less voter fraud than people raping children less than 10 years of age. No that does not make sense. I have a proposal that would use a fingerprint instead of an ID.

I have this on my website. I get rid of jerrymandering, voter imitation, and voter fraud. See electgeorgedavis.org. I tried to keep the core what everyone wanted but also make sure the opposing parties concerns are addressed.

Disagree

No, my grandparents immigrated to the United States somewhere near 1900. My grandfather was arrested for growing red potatoes. He was a dumb immigrant so who cared. Everyone has someone in their family that was picked on by society. Look at the American Indian, or the Japanese in WWII. The other part no one believes in giving reparations even the people who say it should be done. Those who want reparations, How much did they already give? NOTHING. They do not believe they own them anything.

Most of the so-called racism is not racism. You cannot prevent nut jobs; you can only stop them. In a free society, you must let the nut jobs talk, but you have the right stop their violence.

Neutral

I do not know on that one. I heard Pros and Cons. I need to see the data. I do have concerns but there is so much hype on both ends that I would need more information.

The environment needs to be protected, but that protection should be based on facts not “Because I say so data.” The world is 1.5 degrees warmer since 1970. NASA put temperature probes on the moon, and the moon is 1.5 to 3 degrees warmer. There is a lot of environmental issues, but if you examine the environmentalist policy, it destroys the environment, destroys the economy, and kills millions of people each year. If you take where the environment say we are, we are far worst. Go to my website electgeorgedavis.org for the full write-up.

Moderate

I believe that the government should only be involved when the induvial cannot do the job themselves. Such as regulating those restaurants serve healthy options. I can choose a healthy meal or a fatty one. The government does not need to regulate the restaurant menu for me. I have voted Democrat I have voted Republican, I vote for who will do the best job overall. But at times, I voted who I thought would make the smallest mess.

None needed

No

I tired of the bickering in DC. The Demarcates are fight the Demarcates. The Republicans are fighting the Republicans. How can anything get done? Also, the amount of lies about every issue is growing. Look at President Regan and President Clinton, the opposing party control part or all the Congress and Senate, yet they managed to get things done. How? Simple they gave a little and the got a little. It is call politics not dictatorship. I am a retired test engineer. My job was to see how systems worked and if they would fulfill the needs that they were supposed to fill. I found the problems, and when a section did not fill the needs of the customer, could the need be filled if done different than as designed. We need to have simple solutions and low-cost solution instead of making sure the political cronies are paid. On sections of bills that everyone can agree, pass them, then work on the issues that there is disagreement. We can get things done. See my webpage for detailed reasons. Electgeorgedavis.org

Agree

Yes. We must start treating the police as we do doctors. If a surgeon makes a mistake that causes you injury or death. He can be sued but not arrested. Why, because there was no desire nor negligence to cause you harm. It was a mistake. If we treat them that they cannot make a mistake, we will be left with people that do not care if people die, they are not risking being arrested. Look at the school shooting were the officers were told to stray put, no one disagreed.

Disagree

No. Look at what happened when this occurred. Crime and murders increased. But this was known. In the 1970’s or 1980’s time frame many cities cut back on the police because of budget cuts. Guess what, crime and murders went up. With the Defund the police movement, some cities moved the funds to health and social programs, and crimes and murders went up. I would call that an utter failure.

Do not let criminals get a gun. There are three types of deaths associated with guns: Suicide, domestic violence, and criminal activity. Iin states that have strict gun laws the suicides that use guns are down but not the total suicides. So, they are still committing suicide but not with a gun. Domestic starts with small amounts of violence and escalates, so we can stop it before someone is killed. Criminal activity also starts small and escalates. The criminal usually starts small and gets more violent. We can stop them. But if you let everyone go without punishment, you enabled everyone to be more violent. Stop blaming the gun and jail the offender.

Disagree

NO You do not sue the car manufacturer if a drunk get behind the wheel and kills someone. Do you sue the alcohol company for drunk drivers? Gun manufactures are the only manufacturers that is put in this situation. People kill people, not guns, but some people refuse to blame the person and blames the gun.