Ahsen Mujeeb Malik

Disagree

I respect the belief that human life, in the morally significant sense that sets it apart from all other forms of life, begins at conception. But that's a theological claim, not a scientific one. Science can confirm biological facts, but it can't answer moral questions. Because it's a matter of faith, I believe abortion in early pregnancy is fundamentally a religious liberty issue. Why should women of other faiths be forced into the theological opinion of conservative Christians on this matter?

Choose not to answer

I am not looking to legislate my ideals on this matter. My goal in addressing this issue is to bring both sides together towards a mutually agreeable compromise in order to prevent this issue becoming the cause of civil strife.

Neutral

As I am not looking to legislate my ideals on this matter, the issue of taxpayer funding for abortion should be negotiated by both sides to a mutually agreeable compromise.

Neutral

As I am not looking to legislate my ideals on this matter and there are conflicting legal interpretations from both sides on this matter, the issue of interstate transportation of abortion-inducing drugs should be negotiated by both sides to a mutually agreeable compromise.

Agree

Subject to reasonable regulations such as the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Neutral

This statement is too generic. At some level this could be justified, at other levels it would be unjust.

Neutral

I strongly believe the government should cut spending to balance the budget so that there is no more deficit spending. If we can build bipartisan consensus towards this, but keep the remaining debt level static for now that in and of itself would be a monumental achievement in securing our nation's future prosperity. After the budget is balanced, I don't take a position on whether there should be further spending cuts to utilize towards paying off portions of the existing debt.

1) Our Bloated Defense Budget - we can have a strong national defense and peace through strength without unnecessarily wasting money. 2) Addressing the Issue of Underutilized Federal Office Space. 3) Effectively Deterring Fraud.

Disagree

Subject to the conditions of the Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

I believe in the status quo agreed upon understanding of the 1st Amendment and it should stay as is and any attempt to change it by any group would be disastrous. I also believe that "separation of church and state" does not mean that the church must be removed from the public square, rather the church has every right to participate in the public square.

Between A and B. I support a single payer health insurance system that enrolls all citizens and lawful residents in our country. It can either be a state-based Medicaid-for-all or a federally based Medicare-for-all. In both cases we are not building from scratch but expanding upon an existing architecture. That system should cover basic and catastrophic health insurance, but it would not be an all-inclusive "government pays for everything" as some people would like to implement.

Disagree

Treating people with ongoing illnesses as an "economic burden" to be tracked and assessed is the wrong way to think about human beings, and it can lead to injustice such as the Supreme Court's decision in Buck v. Bell in 1927 upholding Virginia's forced sterilization of institutionalized people. Running an effective healthcare system doesn't require a government registry of individuals by diagnosis. The aggregate, anonymized data already collected through CDC, NIH, and CMS should be sufficient.

C. We should reflect on the mistakes we made on how we tragically mishandled the unipolar moment. Despite that, I believe if we do not persist in the errors we are currently making, and change our course of actions, the future is bright. But our track record is clear that U.S. intervention in other countries' affairs has led to unnecessary violence, chaos, and instability around the world, and depleted our stock of defensive weapons, ultimately making us less secure.

Neutral

We should reflect on the mistakes we made on what led them to be what they are now. Yet, I'm not naive to their intentions and at some level we have to deal with them the way they currently are. But we should do our best to de-escalate tensions and attempt to cooperate as much as possible for global peace. We should have healthy competition that is positive-sum and not negative-sum.

Israel in its current form is an apartheid state and the U.S. should not be arming or giving cover to it as long as it continues to behave in such an immoral fashion. I support a just and equitable shared sovereignty solution that would maintain Israel as a homeland for Jewish people as long as Palestinians (which include descendants of some of the earliest Christians) have the same right as well. The best way to achieve that is a one-state solution with equal rights for all inhabitants.

Disagree

With all due respect, I disagree with the framing of this question. To stigmatize an entire religion of over a billion people for the actions of a few extremists is wrong.

I support family-based reunification because I believe when families are allowed to be together, they are happier. I think anyone who truly believes in family values should not object to this. Beyond that, I generally believe in more liberal borders but I don't have a strong opinion on this specific matter, and am open to considering what Americans on both sides of this debate would like in order to reach a mutually agreeable compromise and build consensus.

Choose not to answer

I think this question ignores and sidesteps the heart of the issue. What do we do about the 10 - 15 million undocumented immigrants who crossed the border illegally, many of them years ago? I believe that we should offer them permanent residency with no path to citizenship. Once this issue is resolved, the sanctuary city problem goes away.

Choose not to answer

Neutral

This question is worded too vaguely. Depending on what exactly it means for a foreign government to "fund American education," there are approaches to this that could be justified and beneficial for our nation and approaches to this that could be harmful for our nation.

Strongly Agree

I distinguish between physical transition and social transition. I oppose both, but view physical transition morally worse than social transition. At the same time, this issue does need to be dealt with sensitively. If a child does identify as the opposite of their biological gender, I would not impose my views on that child and would defer to the judgment of that child's parents.

Choose not to answer

I empathize with where you are coming from, and share a similar ethical worldview on the issue you are referencing. However, once a right like this has been given, it cannot be taken away. That would be unfair. But just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally acceptable in the presence of God.

I am a Sunni Muslim.

Neutral

This issue actually belongs to the states being the laboratories of democracy. Since a reasonable case can be made either way, I don't take a position and am supportive of the diversity of approaches. On the one hand, you need a photo ID to open up a bank account. The counter to that is that this can actually be burdensome to many people of lesser means. For many of us, it might seem odd that some Americans don't have bank accounts. We should empathize and try and put ourselves in their shoes.

Agree

I believe the overwhelming majority of women across the political spectrum would agree as well.

Reflecting on the Biblical story of Noah's ark can help us answer this question in the manner most pleasing to God.

No.

No.

Choose not to answer

I prefer not to attach myself to any label. My motto is, "A Uniter, Not a Divider. Bringing Americans on the left, right, and center together with the firm belief that we have more in common than our disagreements, and that we should agree to disagree civilly with mutual respect."

Agree

And parents need to be involved as well.

The ones already in place.