Mark Gorman

Strongly Agree

Agree

I believe that abortion is healthcare and should be accessible for anyone that wants or needs an abortion. Getting an abortion not a simple or easy decision and while I can understand the desire to reduce the number of abortions, I believe that energy is better spent tackling economic factors that lead to abortion rather than restricting or criminalizing abortions.

Strongly Agree

Money is a finite resource and when so few hold so much money that others struggle to make ends meet, the only options are either to redistribute wealth or print more money to give to those struggling to make ends meet. Of the two, I prefer the former option as that limits the impact of inflation.

Neutral

Concerns over the national debt are exaggerated and while I agree there is wasteful spending, I do not believe that cutting spending is the golden solution to fixing our problems.

I believe that our tax code needs major overhauls. I would like to see the elimination of loopholes wealthy people use to get around paying taxes, an implementation of a wealth tax, and overhauling our business taxes so that unionized and employee-owned companies pay less in taxes than companies that try to union-bust. I also believe that new small businesses should be given some tax leniencies to help them get established as many small businesses fail in their first couple of years.

Disagree

Religious liberties are not under threat in the United States. There are no laws restricting or outlawing the practice of any religion thus far and there are none being proposed.

Strongly Agree

The relationship between church and state should be one of complete separation.

I believe that governments, schools, and employers should be allowed to require vaccinations in all circumstances except in cases where doctors deem it dangerous to give individuals vaccines due to medical conditions.

I am a full-fledged supporter of Medicare for All and believe that healthcare should be funded by the government and guaranteed to all.

I would say C with a caveat. The United States has a habit of sticking their military where non-Americans don't want them to be, and as such it tends to undermine American support in those countries and give the opposition ways to get recruitment and funding otherwise unavailable to them. As such, I think the U.S. should only get involved in conflicts where US aid is actually wanted such as in Ukraine and should otherwise strive to promote peace wherever possible.

Agree

While there are legitimate concerns about anti-semitism, these are dwarfed by the treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government and like the sanctions against Apartheid South Africa and the Boycott India movement led by Gandhi, a peaceful boycott movement could have a significant impact towards the end of the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

Agree

I find this question more nuanced than a simple agree or disagree. While I do think that the CCP does pose serious global threats to the United States, our economies are intertwined enough that any actual conflict between the two would destroy both and with the added threat of mutually assured destruction, I do not believe that the CCP would be willing to go so far as direct military conflict against the United States.

Most Islamic terrorism is the result of foreign meddling in the Middle East to create and prop up governments friendly to the west. If the United States wants to end the threat of Islamic terrorism, pulling U.S. troops out of the Middle East and working with the governments that exist to build their domestic economies would be strong steps towards diminishing the appeal of Islamic terrorism and eradicating the threat.

Strongly Disagree

our southern border is already sufficiently secure. There is no threat of invasion by Mexico or any other Latin American country and the only real threat to be concerned with is cartel or gang violence.

Strongly Disagree

It is not the responsibility of local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. They also have no obligation to enforce immigration laws or aid ICE or the Border Patrol in enforcing immigration laws. As such sanctuary cities are not doing anything wrong by not providing immigration enforcement with assistance where cutting off federal or state aid would be necessary or warranted.

Anyone who wants to immigrate to the U.S. should be allowed to immigrate and under pretty much any circumstance. If laws are broken on U.S. soil, then those who break them should be punished the same regardless of whether they are an immigrant or a citizen.

Strongly Agree

Choose not to answer

I believe that it is my duty as a human being to try to help the most people possible and do as much good as I can while I am alive.

Strongly Agree

If you have a social security number tied to your name, that should be sufficient to register and once registered, you should be able to vote without further interferences.

I would implement universal mail-in voting and online voter registration to make voting as easy as possible for the American people that may otherwise find voting difficult or inconvenient.

Agree

Those alive today are the children and grandchildren of slaves. Many of them are still impacted today by the effects of slavery. For the vast majority of americans, most of their wealth comes from inheritance and land. For the vast majority of African Americans who are the descendants of slavery, they received neither. Slaves were never compensated for slavery and had to start from scratch in a society built off of their labor in a society that still underpaid and discriminated against them.

Yes. There is extensive documentation of efforts by racist groups like the KKK to infiltrate law enforcement to use the powers and privileges of the position to discriminate against minorities. This not only jeopardizes the safety of the American people, but also creates a national security risk if these trained and armed people don't like the direction that our nation is heading.

Strongly Disagree

we should be transitioning away from oil and natural gas, not expanding our drilling efforts.

B. Stricter environmental laws would not necessarily have to hurt the economy. It is only when we implement these laws without investment in alternatives and job opportunities for people that these policies have a significant economic impact.

Very Liberal

It is my belief that the government can and should not only protect the freedoms of the people, but expand those freedoms to include the basic necessities needed to exercise the freedoms already protected. It is also my belief that the government as an institution is not inherently bad, but instead is only as bad as those in office make it.

I have not had the opportunity to be interviewed as of yet and the news sites I have contacted thus far have been unwilling to discuss my political views or report on my campaign.

I have not.

My legislative priorities will always be centered around doing the most good possible. This means that I will always support legislation that will make goods and services Americans need more accessible and affordable.

Strongly Disagree

Strongly Agree

We have seen Denver's STAR program work to great success in the couple of years since it was implemented. Programs like STAR not only reduce the weight of responsibility on the shoulders of police officers, but also mean that those who are struggling to get their economic footing or struggling with mental health issues will get help from specially trained individuals. Also since most crimes are crimes of poverty, helping the impoverished through community programs will also reduce crime.

universal background checks with a digital database that can easily confirm whether someone is restricted from purchasing guns or not as well as a process for being put on and taken off of the list. On top of this, I would restrict those with suicidal tendencies and those with a history of violence from being able to purchase guns. I also believe comprehensive training on how to use, clean, and store firearms should be necessary to get approved to own a gun.

Agree

If firearms manufacturers are advertising their guns on the basis of how effective they are at killing people, even if it is meant in the context of self-defense, then they should be held liable when people use their guns to test their advertisement on others.