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.

 

[TheRealTruth]

Women should always have the right to choose but I think some here are being quite hyperbolic when they say if somebody is against abortion they they should want to house every unwanted child or that because of their stance they should also rail against the practices along the US/Mexico border.

That would be like criticizing a vegetarian for wearing leather shoes. Somebody can have a viewpoint or believe in one area but that does not make them a hypocrite if they do not taking all other similar stances under their purview.

The constant gotcha attacks I am seeing in this thread are rather childish.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

it has nothing to do with abortion. I also always find it funny for people who are not involved in religion to make the above claims.

 

[CoolBrees]

What about foster kids? There are over 50k in California alone.

someone asked why adoption is so hard. It isn’t hard at all. You can begin the process today and have multiple children by Christmas - as many as you want. I can give you the number.

Sure, the child most likely is going to have one of multiple learning and behavioral disorders, a victim of psychological, sexual and physical abuse and was born addicted to drugs and alcohol and have the physical and mental deformities to show for it. Oh yeah they are around 2-17 years old.

those are the demo of my wife’s case load, a foster care social worker, all of them for the last 10 years. The idea that all of these perfect little babies are out there just waiting to be snatched up if only the agency and the government would have so much red tape is ridiculous.

There is no money or support for the Foster care system and we fail these children every day. Their lives are not happy. They are abused and become abusers. The are from crime and become criminals. There are no happy stories, the ones that are adopted face a lifetime of therapy and emotional baggage. Oh and suicidal tendencies.

My wife spent Tuesday early morning from the hours from 12am to 5 am with one of her girls. 13 years old and victim of rape since she was 6 months old and was kept in a cage. Her mom sold her to an undercover agent as a sex slave. Permanent sex slave. For $2500.

The reason my wife was called out to the shelter was She was trying to kill herself by jumping off the roof- she had broken her hand beating through the roof access. She jumped twice and was pulled back. They gave her a knife to cut herself with until the FD could get there. All she wanted to do was die. I can tell stories like this for hours and I am not even the one who is doing it. Just hear them as I hold my crying wife.

my whole point to this is, while we argue about what a clump of cells thinks or needs, there are THOUSANDS of babies that are here and unwanted that we just turn into criminals due to lack of support. 75% become criminals as 50% are homeless within two

 

[Beach Friends]

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

I don't know why you keep questioning him about "brown kids." It's not a leap for someone to interpret that as you insinuating he is a racist.
If anything, his position on abortion suggests the opposite, IMO.

 

[Lazybones]

What about foster kids? There are over 50k in California alone.

someone asked why adoption is so hard. It isn’t hard at all. You can begin the process today and have multiple children by Christmas - as many as you want. I can give you the number.

Sure, the child most likely is going to have one of multiple learning and behavioral disorders, a victim of psychological, sexual and physical abuse and was born addicted to drugs and alcohol and have the physical and mental deformities to show for it. Oh yeah they are around 2-17 years old.

those are the demo of my wife’s case load, a foster care social worker, all of them for the last 10 years. The idea that all of these perfect little babies are out there just waiting to be snatched up if only the agency and the government would have so much red tape is ridiculous.

There is no money or support for the Foster care system and we fail these children every day. Their lives are not happy. They are abused and become abusers. The are from crime and become criminals. There are no happy stories, the ones that are adopted face a lifetime of therapy and emotional baggage. Oh and suicidal tendencies.

My wife spent Tuesday early morning from the hours from 12am to 5 am with one of her girls. 13 years old and victim of rape since she was 6 months old and was kept in a cage. Her mom sold her to an undercover agent as a sex slave. Permanent sex slave. For $2500.

The reason my wife was called out to the shelter was She was trying to kill herself by jumping off the roof- she had broken her hand beating through the roof access. She jumped twice and was pulled back. They gave her a knife to cut herself with until the FD could get there. All she wanted to do was die. I can tell stories like this for hours and I am not even the one who is doing it. Just hear them as I hold my crying wife.

my whole point to this is, while we argue about what a clump of cells thinks or needs, there are THOUSANDS of babies that are here and unwanted that we just turn into criminals due to lack of support. 75% become criminals as 50% are homeless within two

are you saying that justifies not giving them the opportunity at life?

 

[MapStaff]

A reminder that civility is a requirement on this board. That means not phrasing comments in needlessly confrontational ways, and not responding in kind.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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!

You are making assumptions with no basis in fact.

Protecting the right to life is a function of government most everyone agrees upon.

At some point between conception and voting age, abortion becomes a violation of that right to life.

Government does not provide. Government takes.

I much prefer private charitable activity over government programs.

 

[V Chip]

At some point between conception and voting age, abortion becomes a violation of that right to life.

Not to quibble, but abortion only exists as an option until birth.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Not to quibble, but abortion only exists as an option until birth.

I used that particular phrasing to be as non-controversial as possible.

 

[Farb]

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?

Maybe you don't care about black skinned children? There is a theory that abortions directly have a negative effect on the black community in the United States.

See how easy that was to go off the rail and just scream 'racism' when you cant make a point?

 

[Farb]

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?

I would imagine that most normal people were not particularly exited about the idea of putting children in cages when the Obama administration started it and continue to not support it now that the current administration has continued it.
Still not sure how this has anything to do with abortion, but I guess it might make you feel like you are morally superior on your view on children?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Women should always have the right to choose but I think some here are being quite hyperbolic when they say if somebody is against abortion they they should want to house every unwanted child or that because of their stance they should also rail against the practices along the US/Mexico border.

That would be like criticizing a vegetarian for wearing leather shoes. Somebody can have a viewpoint or believe in one area but that does not make them a hypocrite if they do not taking all other similar stances under their purview.

The constant gotcha attacks I am seeing in this thread are rather childish.

Asking people to reconcile the perceived disconnect between their seeming apathy in supporting life after birth with their obsession with perceived life before it seems to be at the heart of what this board is attempting to foster, no?

I think there has been a lot of unnecessary poison in this thread, but that line of questioning is fair and if it is not I would like an explanation for why it isn't?

Wanting to deny a child the medical needs it may require, or the mother the maternity care it needs, but forcing it to term by law rooted in a moral argument about the sanctity of life seems pretty self-evidently contradictory. One I suspect will evoke the larger reconciliation problem of a coalition formed around libertarians, religious conservatives, cultural conservatism, and pro-moneyed class interests.

 

[MT15]

I think it’s all in the presentation. As long as the question is posed similarly to how you just posed it, and not with the other types of statement that ascribe value judgments to the other poster. At least that’s my interpretation of the guidelines so far.

 

[V Chip]

I would imagine that most normal people were not particularly exited about the idea of putting children in cages when the Obama administration started it and continue to not support it now that the current administration has continued it.
Still not sure how this has anything to do with abortion, but I guess it might make you feel like you are morally superior on your view on children?

The Obama administration built the "cages" in the detention centers. And during some periods of extreme overflow, children were housed temporarily (less than 72 hours) in those detention center "cages." However, there was not the policy in place to separate children from their families nor house migrant children indefinitely (multiple weeks) in those "cages" until the Trump administration.

 

[The moose]

I don't know why you keep questioning him about "brown kids." It's not a leap for someone to interpret that as you insinuating he is a racist.
If anything, his position on abortion suggests the opposite, IMO.

I would guess because the little brown kids are being separated from their parents by the guy that pro life conservatives voted in.

I guess that is it. I would assume people crossing the southern border and not fair complected.

So as a non pro life conservative I just wonder how you guys justify that?

Now is this too hard?

 

[The moose]

The Obama administration built the "cages" in the detention centers. And during some periods of extreme overflow, children were housed temporarily (less than 72 hours) in those detention center "cages." However, there was not the policy in place to separate children from their families nor house migrant children indefinitely (multiple weeks) in those "cages" until the Trump administration.

Show it to me!

Fine give me a link!

I don't care where it is from!

 

[Lazybones]

I would guess because the little brown kids are being separated from their parents by the guy that pro life conservatives voted in.

I guess that is it. I would assume people crossing the southern border and not fair complected.

So as a non pro life conservative I just wonder how you guys justify that?

Now is this too hard?

Again I’m not sure why you are equating the 2 scenarios.

I will happily talk about the border. I would suggest that you make another thread, as I’ve already derailed this one

 

[Lapaz]

we have those programs currently. But yes, take away the subsidies from places like planed parent hood and make the current programs stronger.

Taking away more money from Planned Parenthood would result in more unwanted pregnancies. This is completely illogical. Demonizing an organization that counsels women and provides contraceptives is illogical. It’s a thoughtless Republican stance. Very disengenuous. If you really want fewer abortions, you would advocate to increase their funding. None can be used for abortions, so that would be completely consistent.