Strongly Agree

Though I have no issues regarding abortion, the taxpayers ought not fund them. It is wrong to insist those that hold religious differences to be FORCED to assist those with different morality. Essentially, this is a SPIRITUAL matter, not a LEGAL one.

Strongly Agree

At any time prior to labor pains. Once labor begins, the pain ought not to be permitted to impact a decision such as that. However, I would like to see us try to work in the FATHERS opinion as well before an abortion takes place. I have not yet worked out a way to do this, but I feel the father should also have his say, to a point. But yes, the full term, up to labor pains. Mind you, I am Pro Life Christian. I just know that abortion falls under spiritual, and not governmental. For any Society to get along, we must endure those that act in opposition to our own teachings. Freedom demands it.

Disagree

The statement has to be taken in two parts (from the 'and' in the statement). So, IS religious liberty 'at risk'? I am not so sure of that. I did feel it was wrong to lock the doors of places of worship for COVID. Places of worship are at their MOST IMPORTANT in times such as those. THAT exhibited a bit of 'at risk'. But on the overall, I don't think the problem is that big. as for the second part, yes, any and all religions should be protected under our 1st Amendment.

Strongly Disagree

Freedom. Simply put, Freedom. No one should be compelled to do ANYTHING against their will (exception, military service). That stands for ANY reason, not just moral or religious. Yes, this can lead to other perceived issues, but let The People decide to ostracize or not, if such behavior is unwanted. When a vendor acts against the community, the community usually stops doing business with that vendor. Freedom guides everything, IF we let it.

None. I myself am Christian, but I will not allow that in any campaign positioning. I am well aware of our 1st amendment and why it is there. Our government should be not only religion neutral, but protective of any and all religions. NEVER prevent people from attending services, FOR ANY REASON! During WWII, worship continued even while the city itself was under attack. Thus, if a congregation chooses to get together, it must be permitted. The government has zero opinion on any religion itself. On that note, the prayer before Congress begins daily needs to be removed. "In God We trust' removed from our currency. Again, I am a Christian, but I see the need to keep the government out of it. Why you ask? Freedom. Freedom to worship as one pleases, or not worship at all if that is the choice. If I were to write more on this subject, it would only be redundant. So, I will end it this: Freedom.

D (sort of). D certainly was the intent of our Founding Fathers. Let me start with that. What they would have said is to stop trade with countries that act aggressively towards others (trade embargo). While also encouraging our friends to do the same. But even sending (gifting) money to one side is intervening. Let's go back to WWII. FDR wanted to get us into the war, but couldn't. Not even the PRESIDENT could do that (back then), and Constitutionally, still cannot today. Declaring War belongs to Congress, and rightly so,. Yes, I understand that certain powers have been 'conferred' from Congress to POTUS. I point out that nowhere in our Constitution does it say that powers can be transferred to other branches. It is my conclusion that those powers MUST be returned to Congress, under the Constitution. It then become up to The Peoples representatives to start a (or engage in an existing) war, as a wholesale group. On that note, the reason America was attacked on 911 was DUE to our intervening overseas, where we ought not be. Just as Washington DC cannot make good decisions for local communities, America must not force themselves on foreign peoples. HOW DARE WE think that OUR way must be THEIR way! I recommend a more soft-friendship with foreign nations, based on commerce. Let me ask yo this: How does your local community get along? Okay, for the most part? That is because you do NOT have carpetbaggers trying to sell you FORCIBLY on something different. The same holds true around the globe. Nobody likes being forced. We can encourage by offering good trade deals. But nothing beyond that. George Washington warned us about getting into alliances. As we experienced in Vietnam, our people aren't fond of losing their children to an unnecessary conflict. get back to Congress actually DECLARING war, if our young people are to go into harms way. Then if war is to be declared, let's fight it the best we can (NOT like Vietnam!). For WWII, the US didn't enter into until Pearl Harbor. We didn't enter the war in Europe until Germany declared war in us (within a week after Pearl Harbor). It was quoted back in our founding, "America must be prepared to take the first blow" - James Madison in one of the federalist papers, I believe). That defined the United States as a peaceful , commerce loving nation. The only reason for war is a disruption of commerce, or a direct hostile invasion of our lands. So, this places the world on shaky ground, now (if MY United States will keep their noses out of foreign conflicts), but no it doesn't. After a better reformation (getting rid of the Security Council), these matters now fall under the United Nations jurisdiction. The US needs to stop using NATO as a supporter of our actions. Bring it to the UN and a vote on the floor. Beyond that, the UN would not only take action, should the vote go that way, but it must be able to FUND any armies involved in any fight, as if these are mercenaries. Such funding should come from those nations that voted in favor of action, and NOT the entire Body. The military also from those countries that voted to do so. From the United States, we have to hear from Congress for our 'vote'. If America is operating properly, we would have the ability to input our singular voice to our representatives to decide peace or war. Basically, we need to stop allowing Washington DC to muddy up the process to their onw whims. Many that have been there have private investments they consider, to send OUR young people to die for their accounts. In short, America needs better representatives in Congress then this biased and partisan nonsense. People of their own ilk. People that will consider all of the impact of any decision made, and lead without listening to partisan leaders, but instead, listening only to their constituents.

Strongly Agree

Yes, and allow all Palestinians access to their previously owned lands. Israel and Palestine has to work this out themselves, if we are to see any lasting Peace. Whether it be single or two state solution, it is up to them. But Israel has been over growing their estate, such as it is. That has to stop.

Strongly Agree

The US has a Chinese ally in the White House, which increases our peril. But still, we have to maintain our stance of commerce only. For my thoughts, I would already have cancelled all trade with Communist China, if only for the abuse of the Uighurs. Of course, MY United States would be far more self sufficient. We could be, with the right leadership.

Stop interfering in foreign affairs. After 911, Pres Bush said "They hate us for our Freedoms". Lie. They hate us for our meddling. They think we are there to bring those freedoms upon them. They are correct which is why they hate us. As we continue to meddle, we bring those very Freedoms upon them. When we are finished, we establish a puppet ruler to enforce those freedoms (ex; The Shah of Iran). The US will need to spend a long time (decades) not interfering to show good faith to reduce that threat. Let us not think of this as 'eradicating' a threat', but instead, learning how to live and let live. Leave them alone. Make that an outspoken new policy. 'The US shall not intervene in any foreign affairs without UN authorization' should be our stance. Frankly, few if any Americans can really get deeply involved in that dispute. It is not our homeland, thus we do not understand it well enough to apply our ideals to it. Again, it is up to those directly involved in the region. No outside 'treaty' will stand the test of time.

In rare cases, an employer could do so. COVID didn't reach that level for my approval. To forcibly administer vaccines is to act against peoples will. Freedom, once again. Those rare cases would be restricted to other high risk labs doing similar work. Perhaps hospitals could require masks. But I dislike being forced to do anything. I believe a lot of people are like that. Yes, explain to us the issue, describe the vaccine, then let us make those decisions, since we are talking about injecting a foreign substance into our bodies. It seems that our elected officials have become so power hungry that they disregard our Freedom of Choice. As you read this, I then would NOT take that viewpoint. I feel this should be more like the old hurricane warnings. Such as, "Evacuations encouraged", but people can still make up their own minds. As opposed to "Evacuations MANDATORY", which we are now at today. We are adults, Tell us, offer to us, then let us make up our minds.

D (sort of). I propose we transfer Medicare and Medicaid into non-profit organizations. All ran privately. Let me point out that the cost of medical treatment BALLOONED once Medicare was in place. Once the doctors knew that would get paid, they raised their rates to accommodate the new program. This needs to be said by we old folks, before it truly slips into the past. When I grew up, the doctor didn't hesitate to make house calls. Today, no such thing. As President trump got passed, the pricing of procedures needs to be posted BEFORE a patient even selects a place to have one done. We need to see competition in medical care, thus pricing. NOT a single payer system, where the doctors will demand anything they want, thus holding taxpayers responsible for it. If the over-priced medical system reaches a tipping point, The People will stop using it. Even WITH insurance, if co-pays are exorbitant. The over-priced medical system is based on R&D (Research and Development), where they claim the cost of inventing new machines is contained in the price. Ok, how about the cost of an X-Ray? How long has THAT R&D set us back? And it still does. I have not yet researched the R&D costs of equipment currently in use, versus the pricing of procedures. But is that the purpose of government? Sorry, it is not. This is all Free Market Enterprise, with eth exception of the government programs. So, keep this in mind. When Medicare hit the scene, prices went UP because the doctors knew they were GUARANTEED payment. Stop subsidizing the industry. Medicare and Medicaid can become 'member only' non-profit organizations. There should never be a 'public option', ran by the government.

Strongly Disagree

This needs to be balanced using Capitalism. The Consumer simply needs to stop buying the high priced products. Stop trying to 'keep up with the Joneses'. The lower end of the Economy starts eating fast food instead of dining out, for example. Avoid national chain stores. Stop buying brand new cars. All this and more like it will, over time, correct the imbalance.

Strongly Agree

And more. Bill Clinton did this, and it worked. He even raised taxes while cutting spending. we ALSO need to repeal our 14th Amendment, where Clause IV says the National Debt shall NOT be questioned! That clause has to hit the road. It was always wrong to include. I suggest it be replaced with a fixed debt limit during peacetime, and a slightly larger limit during war, using our GDP as its base factor. That would stop the huge debt Constitutionally.

Gert rid of it. Most of the Federal Government operates well outside our Constitution. We paid zero taxes until around 1919, and then it was only the Corporate Tax (that's all the 16th Amendment permits, by the way, Income is business revenue, not a persons wage or salary). return to the fed being funded by Tariff on trade (which it had done up UNTIL 1919). And reduce it to its Constitutional limits. We need to rebuild our Republic, all the way down to Municipal level. Thus, in the end, the CITY would receive the lions share of any taxation. The Fed would get nothing, the State a bare trickle. THAT is how we were built. If we relocated the funding back to local levels, then, when a local issue arises, the population would HAVE the funds to address it. Even if it should be a more widespread disaster, each municipality would still have the fund to help themselves. Consider FEMA for a moment. They are Jacks of all trades, but master of none. EVERY state which could encounter a disaster. has their own 'EMA', that are better at their more localized issues than FEMA could ever be. When one extrapolate that to everything, shouldn't the local people have the biggest control over their lives? The Federal Government was never meant to reach into the States for any reason. And it didn't until after Socialism was born in the 1880's (Karl Marx). Teddy Roosevelt creating the Dept of the Interior around 1903, our Federal reserve was created in 1913, the 16th Amendment in 1916, FDR's New Deal in 1933, Eisenhowers Interstate Highway system in the 1950's. These are all overreaches by the US Govt. It not only has continued but worsened! They ALL create not only our tax burden, but adds to our national debt. But why should that be the case? It is due to politicians now OVER-PROMISING to The People, then being forced to go into debt to make their promise good. To truly address the tax code, we need to reduce ALL levels of government to their Constitutions and Charters. THEN we can see how much smaller we can make them. We are adults, and with todays technology, have access to a ton of information which can tell us how to do practically anything. Just search and there are so many helpful videos, you have to choose which one to use. From that, it is time that we The People pretty much self-ruled. I suggest we work towards bringing all that 'national' socialism down into our communities, and let US vote to keep or ignore each and every one. To include all of it, Medicare, Welfare, ALL decided locally. Yes, it will take a lot of work, but THAT will eliminate any tax code issues by eliminating any reason to be taxed in the first place. I look at the tax code as an equilateral tringle. When it started, it had a long base, with two side walls reaching up to a point at the top. The largest part of any taxation was LOCAL, not DISTANT (as King George did to us). Today, that triangle is inverted. The tiny point as its base. This is a very UNSTABLE situation, as the triangle could tip over and CRASH at any second. Today, when Washington DC messes with our economy, they do so in their feeble attempt to keep the tiny tip at the bottom (while enriching themselves). I only have the ambition to return the triangle to its original design. So, back to the start, get rid of the tax code, while also; getting rid of the un-Constitutional operations that are funded by it. Let those fall back onto the States, Counties, Cities, or even The People themselves (as much as possible). Let the adults that live in communities, make decisions for their community. Stop being FORCED to adhere to distant people, that do not live in those communities. Restore the Republic! No two cities, even in America, are the same, let alone Counties, or States. America was not designed to be FORCED to adhere to ONE PERSONS EDICTS. Or a Federal Government that can go into as much debt as it likes, leaving US with the bill. We need to repeal the 14th Amendment, and keep that debt under OUR wraps. Thank you.

Strongly Agree

Immigration is meant to permit only a certain amount per year. That is based on how many we need for our job market, for the most part. If we allow millions in full disregard of our needs, we support joblessness. Since we have social safety nets, it is inevitable they will be abused if we continue to allow an unrestricted count of immigrants. This is NOT about the color of ones skin, it is about our needs.

Strongly Agree

Back to my tax statement, after a proper re-work, the majority of taxes are already in the hands of the cities (hypothetically). There would BE no 'grant money' available from State or Federal resources. However, Immigration does NOT belong to the States. Sanctuary Cities and\or States are illegal, Constitutionally, and would see their primary elected officials (Mayor, Governor, City Council, etc) placed under Federal arrest.

Prospective employees, for the most part. We look for workers to enter. Admitting those with true humanitarian issues (refugees) is also part of it. Done with the easy answer, now the hard one: To be honest, IF we could straighten out our own issues, we could truly open the borders. As I answered earlier, if we stopped interfering with other nations, thus reducing the hatred that is aimed at us, we could open or arms to more people. Right now, we have the fear of letting in terrorists, that mean to do us harm. We need to fix that for a while, decades probably. Once we have effectively reduced that fear, I can see allowing full and free entry, as long as we defend our elections for our own citizens, Yes, that means some form of an ID to vote. It makes NO sense t all to allow non-residents to cast ballots to affect us when they leave (as NYC is now allowing non-residents a vote, silly!). So, in the long run, I am wiling to open the border completely, as long as we no longer live in fear. For that to happen, we need a different Foreign Policy.

Agree

However, the city in charge should not be so immune. Police answer to their city, and their city ONLY! They do NOT answer to the State, or Federal governments. So, if something during official police operations goes awry, it is the CITY that is liable, unless an officer commits a crime in doing so. No one is above any law, including the police. But it should remain the case that police can use a degree of force in the daily function of their jobs.

Disagree

If a city wants to ADD such programs, then ADD them, and not take away from law enforcement. Yes, the city would have to increase city taxes to do so, which is why this must be the method used. Test the water by adding new taxes for such programs. THEN you will find out if The People approve or not. But taking place off the street is never the right solution. I do agree that certain issues could be handled differently than they are today, but not at the expense of others.

None. The entire purpose of our 2nd Amendment is to remove an obnoxious Federal Government. James Madison in Federalist #46 spells that out. The passing of time does not diminish that critical need. Our 2A was in place due to the war we had just fought, and the history of central jurisdiction for trying to take over everything in ones life, as ours has since done. IT is the sad nature of Men to attempt to gain more and more power from The People. The 2A is there to stop that. So again, NONE.

Strongly Disagree

This idea is absurd. The (communist) Left is attempting to use this paper argument to watch the gun manufacturers squirm, in the hopes they stat closing their doors. I can predict that any such lawsuits will have that intent, which IS the approach the Democrats want to see. Gun dealers do not pull the trigger. People do (unless you are Alec Baldwin it seems). Note how left wing supporters are being let off the hook, such as Baldwin. Biased thus corrupt.

Lean Liberal

I am a Freedom lover. If there is ever a dispute between Freedom and Law, Freedom wins.

Las Vegas Review Journal interview.

No

I am one of you. Not a career politician, and I am doing this JUST for your benefit. Joe Six Pack, if you like. I live a modest life, and have no interest in improving on it, I am fine as it is. I am therefore, un-corruptable. I have no interest in gold or treasure. Just Freedom. To begin with, Freedom from the Federal Government. The US Govt has no authority over anything within the States (except to arrest Counterfeiters, Pirates, or Traitors), read the Constitution. Thus, anything we see today from the federal Government is un-Constitutional. Why does that matter? Who cares as long as a mere 51% said it was okay? That's IT on the nose. A mere 51% to take away the rights of the 49%. This is why the Constitution must be adhered to . To permit our Federal Government (or State) to do something that is not written into those documents, they require an AMENDMENT to do so. To obtain an Amendment, it is far more than a mere 51%. 2/3 of each chamber of Congress, then 75% of the States. See? To allow the government to suddenly do something it never could is SERIOUS BUSINESS! And when done by a mere 51%, it starts revolts! So, the US Govt needs to give up much of its ill gotten authorities. I aim to do just that. We now have a Supreme Court that will rule in my favor. Their ruling in the recent Abortion case, is CLEAR they will read our Constitution, not finding it, and rule it out. There is much we can get rid of with this court configuration. But it is not my intent to simply get rid of it. My plans are to TRANSFER management, out to the States, Counties, Cities, and The People depending on what it is, and how it fits with THEIR Constitutions, Charters, and such. There will be much which will be up for grabs, by ballot. Thus YOUR choice, not THIERS anymore! Aren't we tired of being forced by a distant government? We now live much as if we still lived under King George! So, I intend to rip and tear the laws out o for lives, along with plans on how to transfer them. I will NOT just remove the floor. My legislative priorities are to remove anything the Fed is currently doing, which the Constitution never gave them permission to do so. This clearly would have nothing to do with partisanship. Just the Constitution, our accepted set of rules. As for first, there is no real sequence in mind as all of it has to go. Many of these closures would fit into closer jurisdictions. Some would have to go to a public vote. I have most of the suggestions as to what government management level would take them over. You will be surprised how many do NOT end up with the States, too. For example, health care belongs to only one State that I know of, so that function will be sent to the Counties. Yes, My ideas differ from either of the Two Parties. I dislike them as much as many of you do. But my ideas are rooted in Freedom, and have nothing to do with any gain I may obtain, as I need none. I have no interest in any corporations, or other source of income that I care about. I am precisely just one of you. Living out my life, trying to get by in SPITE of our governments. I want them out of our way, Don't you? Send one of YOURSELVES to Washington DC. I will finally PULL THE PLUG on that place. The American People have lost patience with that place. I have too, and have the necessary plans to make it happen.

Disagree

These differences are part of Human life. The US made a huge mistake passing Hate Crime laws. That alone continues to apply a bias. To normalize human behavior, we have to just let it happen, NOT make a big stink out of it. I am straight, so be it. I would politely reject any offers from gay persons, but that is just me (in fact I have done so). I believe that love finds its own ends. And Society has to simply accept the choices, of bodily mandates we live with. Live and let live.

Strongly Disagree

The US is NOT fundamentally racist. Not anymore. Though there are still some that remain, they are dying off, and the next generation will erase it completely, without any other action required. I lived in Birmingham, AL and had a black friend with a white wife. Nowhere we went did anyone even raise an eyebrow. Racism is dying off. let it die, and leave it alone while it does.

I am a Christian, but I don't wear it on my sleeve. I do strive to obey the general ideas in the Bible, but I also am aware that many other religions have similar writings. The gist is to treat people with kindness. Never force yourself upon them. In fact, do not use force at all, unless in defense. I strive to let others go before me. I can wait, if they need to be in a hurry. It is better for life to allow that to happen instead of fighting over few seconds of time. I prefer peaceful interaction with others. I do not preach any religion, at any time (except with my family). How others choose to live is their choice, and their particular Pursuit of Happiness. Thus, we must allow others to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit.

Neutral

A degree of proof of eligibility is needed. Even if it is being registered to vote, and showing up with a utility bill in your name (that process was used in Pennsylvania when I lived there in the 1990's). It worked well enough. If any government goes with a required photo ID, that MUST be provided free of charge by that government! Otherwise, it becomes a 'poll tax',. expressly un-constitutional. Just saying.

No mail in ballots and no early voting. Sane day registration must be closely monitored for fraud. Perhaps a one week long voting period (at best) to allow enough time so that all have the opportunity to cast their ballot. The early voting can see ballots cast before an event that might change their minds. It truly hurts third party candidates as they aren't even getting started until later, usually. I know because I am one. Thus, it is also patently unfair to third party candidates, thus the constituents themselves. So, registered voters can use utility bills as ID to cast their ballots, as their name is crossed off the list of voters. Voting must be done the day of, or if we agree, a one week long voting session.

Strongly Disagree

There can be no value placed on what a slave would be owed. We would not be able to determine how long they were enslaved, thus the duration would be a guess. Further, many of our African Americans are not descendants of slaves. Are we to pay reparations based on skin color alone? I see no way to track lineage. In the end, all we SHOULD do is treat them as any other human being.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! This is a myth created by the Democrats to win elections. Racism is dying in the US. Not from this Democrat regime, but naturally, by social ostracizing. The majority of Americans know that racism is bad. Most then reject people that continue to perpetuate it. We are weening it out over time, and it needs no oversight by a heavy handed government. I can point out that I lived in Birmingham AL with some friends. He was black, and she was white. To a racist, this is the WORST scenario imaginable! When we went out socially, I saw no eyebrows raised anywhere, by anyone. Believe me, I was watching for it, too! Again, Birmingham Alabama! Not an issue at all. Racism is nearly dead, here. The Democrats like to stir it up to keep the black vote, is all this is about. Does America have a bunch of old white guys still at the top of the heap? Yes, and they are dying off. Their replacements are of a different mindset. Let it go. It is a false pretense. However, it HAS raised our awareness of the issue. I live in a mixed neighborhood, both black and brown, along with whites. Since we all know we are in the same boat, we get along just fine. THAT is the basic human realization that we all need to have. We all have to pay the rent, per se. So, we are getting closer to working together, and ignoring such petty differences as skin color. We DO need to settle the African American community down, after the false prospects given to them by the Democrats. We need to explain to them why reparations truly cannot be done. But we also need to ensure EVERYONE that all people have access to the same programs, or we repeal all Federal programs (taxes with it) and let the local money provide them. I suggest the latter. When we allow the money to remain locally, the locals can make up their own minds as to how to balance life with their neighbors. If the money is still present, parks can be built more easily for family use, to improve the life experience. Just one of many benefits to getting the Fed out of our wallets. Food drives can be locally managed, without the corruption of a national drive, where YOUR donated food goes to another State, perhaps. Useless! anyway, these are simply other human beings. Skin color means nothing. The sooner we move this direction, the faster we can rid us of any racism left.

Neutral

We need to acknowledge that this is a finite resource. Environment regardless, such resources will run dry. For that ALONE, we need to work on reducing their use. Education is already changing our choice of cars. Why must we turn to Use of Force? I believe that is for power mongers, and NOT in our interest. The answer is yes, for now, but we do need to get off fossil fuels.

A. Not costing jobs, but costing tax dollars. AND causing black outs, where they never occurred before. Once again, education and encouragement is enough for adult human beings. How is it that Tesla was already in operation making billions before this recent environment push? It is due to We The People already making the shift. We hear the issue, and are doing it at our own possible and PRACTICAL pace. I disagree with the premise of the question, this is not about losing jobs. More about us losing our Freedom of Choice. But car manufacturers are building electric vehicles, and were doing so prior to this Biden administration. Let us move when we can, at a pace that we are comfortable with. But on Climate Change itself, I have deeper concerns. I do not believe that bringing all of Mankind to zero emissions will alter our current course. I would have to investigate further, but I fear we are going to see it now regardless. If I am right, we have bigger fish to fry. It may be the case where we should seriously be evacuating coastal areas, NOW! It will take some time to accomplish it, so now is the time to get started, if that is truly the case. Note how NASA is striving to find another planet to live on. are we in that gad of shape, and there is nothing we can about it anyway? I like to point out that for COVID, we had a scientist talking to us, but NOT for Climate Change. Why is that? I distrust our government. Which is why I said I would have to investigate. From that, I cannot accept any new 'laws' based on an idea which has NOT been presented to us scientifically. Greenhouse gases consist of more than CO2. Methane is one. CO itself. Even Oxygen is a bit of one. For MY money I would like to see if we can find a way to RETURN that CO2 back to Earth. Some form of tremendous feat of engineering would be needed. But can we be working on that? I perceive a way to use huge fans to suck the atmosphere back into the oceans, much like a pool filter. ANYTHING we can do to survive, is the point! But can we trust what we have been told? Without a scientists of significant reputation to describe it to us? I Myself do not need that. I like to watch the Science Channel, and I hear it from them, very reputable. So, Climate Change is taking place, but to what degree? We know that if a disaster is coming, our government would not tell us, to avoid a panic, so they say. What such practices ALSO prevent is the creativity to allow us to SURVIVE! We need full disclosure on this and any other subject. We are not getting that. Thus, I cannot fully answer the question. But I did express part of my opinion on it.