Reece J. Roberts

Disagree

Human life deserves legal protection, sure, but I don't believe life doesn't begins at conception. There's (usually) about 40 weeks of gestation.

Choose not to answer

Vague question. I don't understand what is being asking here. What defines "artificial?" What defines "purposeful?" Is this about stem cell research? In vivo fertilization? Surrogate pregnancies?

I will never become pregnant, so my opinion ought to be moot. I do the see the argument that at some point during gestation, there's a viable human being with a soul who has not yet been born. But ultimately, I believe in bodily autonomy: the will of anyone to have legal control over their body. So, I support elective abortions based purely on the will of the pregnant person. Though, I could likely be convinced to agree to gestational restrictions up to, say, the end of the second trimester?

Neutral

It's nuanced. Elective procedures should not be funded through taxpayer funds. Procedures that are for the health and safety of a pregnant person are life-saving healthcare, and absolutely should be funded with taxpayer funds allocated for healthcare.

Strongly Disagree

The Comstock Act greatly restricts free trade. Certain elements of the 153 year-old act have some potential national security value, but overall, it really ought to be rewritten and reworked to better protect and serve the needs of people who are no longer living in the 19th century.

Strongly Agree

Neutral

Our graduated tax system is flawed, but it was based on a design intended to be equitable. We would be better served by closing tax loopholes that allow corporations and obscenely wealthy individuals to pay nearly no tax at all.

Agree

Reducing national debt should include both reduction of spending and increasing revenue. The nuance is in the details: where should spending be cut and how should new revenue be raised?

Let's start at the top. Let's severely penalize government officials found to be corrupt, and ban insider trading to keep government contracts competitive. We need to stop all of these taxpayer-funded vanity projects our current administration keeps starting. We should not start any more wars in the Middle East or South America (unless the US is directly attacked).

Neutral

Individuals who choose to work in government should never be allowed to discriminate against others, as the government must serve all persons.

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The first clause is quite clear. The second clause, "prohibiting the free exercise" can cause conflict as some exercise their religion through discrimination. Our government should conduct business in a secular manner, and all who are engaged in business on behalf of the government should also maintain secular conduct while engaged in government business.

The closest selection is : "B) Healthcare insurance funded by the government should be available for all who want it, along with private healthcare options." although it does not accurately reflect my opinions. The most affordable method of providing health care would be a universally funded option, but the existence of a government managed/funded health care system should not eliminate the option for private health care. They are not mutually exclusive.

Choose not to answer

This question is too vague to answer. Quantitative statistics should be kept and reviewed. Personally identifiable information should not.

B) The United States should selectively help countries trying to grow democracy and fight tyranny.

Agree

While it's nice to have an ally in the Middle East, Israel sure does take a lot of our tax dollars, and they seem to be adept at dragging the US into military conflicts.

Agree

All terrorism is a threat to US National Security, regardless of source or ideology.

This is a very complex and nuanced topic, but in essence: Persons with desirable labor skills and/education (in labor markets with known shortages). Humanitarian immigration and refugee/asylum seekers should only be accepted conditionally and/or temporarily, as determined by their specific circumstances.

Neutral

Poorly worded question- I don't like that people ever felt the need to create sanctuary cities. The existence of sanctuary cities is a response to disagreements with immigration enforcement. I'd love strong enforcement of immigration laws, but not if that means putting children in cages (again). Regardless, people should be allowed to run their local governments as they deem appropriate, as long as it does not violate the rights and civil liberties of others.

Disagree

While I generally agree in local/community control of government, it is also important to have minimum standards. Additionally, almost every time "control" of a federal thing goes local, there's tons of embezzled funds. There are too many state and local government officials susceptible to corruption to be trusted. Granted, as of recent, there are also a lot of corrupt federal officials, but federal offices generally have more scrutiny and oversight (or, at least, they used to).

Agree

As this question is worded, foreign funds should stay out of publicly funded education. If private institutions wish to receive foreign funds, that would generally not be the government's place to intervene.

Choose not to answer

Poorly worded question (seriously, this entire questionnaire sucks- write better questions) What defines an "attempt?" What defines "physical or social transition?" How is "child" defined (age; onset of puberty)? - Regardless, In general, I support bodily autonomy. If a person is a minor, and desires to transition to a different sex, then they should be allowed to do so, with the consent of their parent/guardian. A parent/guardian should never force a minor to transition against their will.

Strongly Disagree

If marriage is a religious designation, then the government should remain secular, and neither sponsor nor condone any marriage, ever. If marriage is a legally-recognized union of two individuals, granting special legal privileges, then it must be available to all adult persons.

All people are people. Everyone has a soul. I have a base level of empathy for everyone, as no one asked to be born; everyone is brought into existence against their will (or at least, without their consent). What others may choose to believe, and how others may live their life, is entirely their prerogative. And as long as their actions do not bring harm to anyone else, it truly is none of my business.

Neutral

Our democratic republic managed to handle the essential function of voting for nearly two centuries without photo identification. Voting ID requirements sound like more government overreach, trying to get more funds out of the electorate. I'm sure we can "figure out" how to continue voting as we have for centuries, without having to burden taxpayers with yet another bureaucratic obstacle.

Choose not to answer

The context of this question is unclear. What is a "biological male" or "biological women" (as opposed "women," which was also used in the question)? What defines "participate" or "occupy"? Is it a question about expanding more government overreach into private businesses? Is this question about the existence of transsexual or transgendered people?

By "reliable" are we meaning predictable/consistent? If so, then solar, wind, and hydro. (Petroleum energy market is very volatile; renewables less so) Or, by "reliable", do we mean realistic? If so, then it will likely be more natural gas plants.

No, N/A

No, N/A

Choose not to answer

I don't fit well on to the conservative/liberal spectrum and "Moderate" sounds too complacent. WE DESPERATELY NEED CHANGE. I have some right-leaning beliefs: I believe in self-governance and self-empowerment. I'd like to less government interference with social matters and business practices. I have some left-leaning beliefs: I believe in caring for neighbors and supporting our communities. Some resources should be pooled to manage scarcity, as greed is destroying our society.

Neutral

Obviously we don't want children being exploited. Parents should be monitoring their children's activities. Parents should be teaching their children on what behaviors are suspicious and dangerous. The government can likely provide guidance and/or education about prevention, but doing much more will keep growing the "nanny state" that is crushing our civil liberties.

I would prefer not to see additional restrictions on private gun ownership. Gun violence is definitely a problem, but it's more a symptom of poverty and despair. Taking away access to firearms does not help the disadvantaged, but reducing poverty will help everyone. We need to work on rebuilding our communities- not preventing them from self-defense.