What are your important issues? (1 Viewer)

[wardorican]

Forget the current headlines. Forget the manufactured talking points. What are the big issues you care about? Or the small ones that don't get enough attention?

I'm just going to rattle off a few. I may dig into these more later. In no special order...

1. Infrastructure investment. The major categories being road transportation, flood protection / drainage, electrical grid resiliency, and better mass transit, especially rail. Our rail systems, outside of a few areas like Chicago, NYC, DC.. are just awful. They don't serve enough of the areas. They aren't tying the Suburbs, and towns nearby to the major city centers and major concentrations of Industry.
   1. A - I'd have much preferred no tax cut for the wealthy, and use that money towards Infrastructure. I don't mind some of the corporate tax cuts (not a fan of profitable companies finding ways to pay $0 in taxes.. that's unfair), but take a little back to go towards infrastructure and mass transit, which will boost productivity and lower congestion in major cities.
2. Wage growth. Not just min wage, all wages. Not sure what the government policy could be to drive this, but it's a huge pet issue for me.
3. Technology. Finding the balance between a company being large enough to have stability/security (think Apple, Microsoft, Samsung) to have things work well, but no so large as to stifle all competition and drive up prices. Also, who controls/owns our data. If my data is so valuable, why can't I be compensated for it?
4. Education funding. It's ridiculous how much the States cut from Colleges and how little they controlled their growth since the 1990's. That's why tuition is out of control. So, it's not just the funding issue, but also the lack of forcing public Universities to cap operating budget increases. In college, tuition increases was probably one of the biggest things I tried to fight against when in Student Government. We usually failed, but I did get one win on that topic, when I realized the committee that year was being somewhat dishonest about the increases, and called them out in public about it.

I care about a lot of other things, but I'm going to stop with these four.

 

[brandon]

shameful that you turn this conversation in this way. Peace.

How is it shameful? I am sure you are more than willing to equate abortion with murder.

I'm just asking you to take the next logical step.

 

[Lazybones]

I'd be more interested about his views on social healthcare and the children stuck at the border.

has zero to do with the abortion debate.

 

[brandon]

shameful that you turn this conversation in this way. I think it is obvious I am willing to honestly discuss issues. Thai type of post is just inflammatory.

So you edited after I posted.

If my post came off as inflammatory, I apologize. But to be fair, your suggestion that you value life more than those who are pro-choice is pretty inflammatory itself.

But I'll try to put it in less inflammatory terms.

Do you think that abortion should be criminalized?

Why is that different than criminalizing other birth control methods? Do you feel differently about other birth control methods because you used them?

What sort of penalties would you recommend for someone having an abortion? Are they the same as you would recommend for a parent killing their 2-year old child? Why are they the same, or why are they different?

 

[Lazybones]

How is it shameful? I am sure you are more than willing to equate abortion with murder.

I'm just asking you to take the next logical step.

Shameful and disingenuous. I have no interest in discussing issues with people who resort to hyperbole as step 1.

 

[CoolBrees]

None of PP’s public funding goes to abortions, only women’s health services. This is law.

so wanting to defund PP, is akin to wanting more unsafe sex, in the most vulnerable demographic.

how does this jive with the notion that less unwanted pregnancies is the goal?

 

[brandon]

Shameful and disingenuous. I have no interest in discussing issues with people who resort to hyperbole as step 1.

I think you have no interest in discussing issues when you realize your position is indefensible.

Not unlike when you realized that your understanding of the statistics you presented was flawed.

 

[Lazybones]

I think you have no interest in discussing issues when you realize your position is indefensible.

Not unlike when you realized that your understanding of the statistics you presented was flawed.

Whatever [Mod edit - the inclusion of "fella" construed as patronizing]

 

[SystemShock]

has zero to do with the abortion debate.

It has to everything to do with valuing human life and the well being of innocent children. If you are so worried about the fate and well being of innocent children, you surely would be in favor of giving poor, innocent children healthcare, education, etc. no matter who they are and where they come from. Goes double for professed devout followers of Jesus Christ.

 

[Archies Ghost]

It has to everything to do with valuing human life and the well being of innocent children. If you are so worried about the fate and well being of innocent children, you surely would be in favor of giving poor, innocent children healthcare, education, etc. no matter who they are and where they come from. Goes double for professed devout followers of Jesus Christ.

You are using the wrong verb.

As a devout Catholic, Lazybones surely supports the charitable giving in support of children his faith engages in and has a long history of supporting.

My own father spent much of his childhood in a Catholic orphanage in Louisiana. It is unfortunate that the system of religious orphanages is now largely gone.

What you meant to say is more probably ...

you surely would be in favor of government coercion of others to support nominal programs that are meant to provide the poor, innocent children healthcare, education, etc. no matter who they are and where they come from.

It is perfectly reasonable to be in favor of the welfare of children and opposed to state initiatives purporting to be "for the children".

 

[SystemShock]

You are using the wrong verb.

As a devout Catholic, Lazybones surely supports the charitable giving in support of children his faith engages in and has a long history of supporting.

My own father spent much of his childhood in a Catholic orphanage in Louisiana. It is unfortunate that the system of religious orphanages is now largely gone.

What you meant to say is more probably ...

It is perfectly reasonable to be in favor of the welfare of children and opposed to state initiatives purporting to be "for the children".

No. I used the right verb. And I meant exactly what I wrote.

You have no problem with the government banning abortions to save the innocent babies, but you have a problem with the government providing free healthcare and education for the innocent babies, especially if the innocent babies are illegals.

Praise be to Jesus!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It is perfectly reasonable to be in favor of the welfare of children and opposed to state initiatives purporting to be "for the children".

Curious, does this strict libertarian posture around government interference on behalf of children also apply to laws around sexual consent?

Because if truly applied as a core philosophical principle, which many libertarians do, the only answer to that is that consent laws should be repealed. That it isn't the government's job to dictate to a 13 year old whether she can have sex with a 40 year old.

But if you do make exceptions, and therefore are not an absolutist, you sort of have to come up with a more coherent justification for why using the government to deny self-determination around sexual consent is ok(which I agree should be maintained), but not give them free vaccines or doctor's visits(which I am in favor of).

 

[Slackermod]

Abortion is an emotionally charged topic. We’ve been doing a pretty good job of discussing it, up to a point. Let’s try to keep it that way, without getting personal or responding emotionally.

Treat everyone with respect.

 

[The moose]

In my opinion, this is disingenuous.
Since I personally don't foster orphans, my opinion on abortion isn't valid?
What about kill shelters for stray dogs? Unless you personally foster stray dogs, you have to be for killing the dogs, correct?

I also think that adoptions should be a lot easier and a lot less expensive. I did not have to adopt but 2 of my best friends had to and it was ridiculous the amount of resources and time it took.

You also bring up a great point. You donate to PPhood. That is a good thing for you I am sure. If everyone donated then PPhood could be self supporting and not government funded. The passion for PPhood is there.

I also remember safe, legal and rare.

It is called leading by example.

I would just love to ask that one time to a Bible thump you on the head pro life person and the say we foster kids.

Never get that you get all kinds of other stuff but not fixing the problem answers.

Plenty of kids world wide need help yet they don't.

My ex was a nurse wanted to help with doctors without borders. That is fine.

That is to say you did if you don't help children in need here. Oh and she did not ever do it or volunteer her services here.

See what I am saying. It is talking a good game. Quit talking a good game.

 

[The moose]

has zero to do with the abortion debate.

No it does not.

It says you don't care about brown skin living children.

If you don't your stance is pretty flawed.

Why don't you put your efforts towards the needy living children that the conservative party has screwed over?

 

[SystemShock]

In my opinion, this is disingenuous.
Since I personally don't foster orphans, my opinion on abortion isn't valid?
What about kill shelters for stray dogs? Unless you personally foster stray dogs, you have to be for killing the dogs, correct?

No, you don't have to be for anything.

Every dog I've ever had has been a rescue. Every time I've gone to the shelter to pick a dog, I feel uneasy leaving the shelter knowing that the majority of pups in those cages are not going to make it past the weekend. I can't rescue them all. But I can rescue 1 or 3. And even though it saddens me to know most of the pups I leave behind are going to be gassed that weekend, I understand why it happens.

 

[V Chip]

This seems to suggest that you believe you value life more than those who are pro-choice. Yet, you're just as much a murderer as any of the pro-choice advocates.

Make sure you're also willing to apply it to your own conspiracy to commit mass murder with your wife.

I'm 100% in favor of a woman's right to choose, even without restrictions as to gestational time frame because women and their health care providers should be the ones with that decision, not legislators and lawyers.

But these comments are IMO over the line. Even in Catholic doctrine, birth control wouldn't be considered murder of children/babies/potential life.

 

[Lazybones]

No it does not.

It says you don't care about brown skin living children.

If you don't your stance is pretty flawed.

Why don't you put your efforts towards the needy living children that the conservative party has screwed over?

I’m not even sure where this comes from.

1. You have no idea my stance on this issue
2. Framing the point as not caring about living brown children is a pretty big sign that you probably have no concern on what I would say anyway
3. You have no idea what I do or don’t do for children
4. The topics above can stand on there own, they don’t need to be tied to abortion.

 

[The moose]

I’m not even sure where this comes from.

1. You have no idea my stance on this issue
2. Framing the point as not caring about living brown children is a pretty big sign that you probably have no concern on what I would say anyway
3. You have no idea what I do or don’t do for children
4. The topics above can stand on there own, they don’t need to be tied to abortion.

So what is your stance on little brown kids being separated from their parents?

I know you are a conservative.

Just want to know the
conservative religious thoughts of that one.

Are supreme Court justices worth this?