I have put together some notes from my research. I wish I had more time to invest in this because I believe it is important, I just waited too long to get involved.
I am not putting this out there to replace your own research. I am going to try to provide information to help people in their own decision making process, but mainly this is to show how I arrived at my decision. This blog deals with the presidential candidates. I list both republican and democrat because I don’t like assuming. I wanted to hear what all of them had to say and not form my opinion based on hearsay. Facebook should be called gossipbook; people think posting their opinion loudly and often on social media will somehow make a difference. You have a voice; you have a vote. Use it or stop complaining.
The way I laid out the format here is I listed what issues each candidate has on their site in the order in which they are listed. It seems the republican candidates listed them in order of importance, whereas some of the democratic candidates listed them in alphabetical order. Next, I listed any notes I made while looking that that candidate’s site. Finally, I listed notes I made during the debates I watched.
Now, here is my opening statement: the squeaky wheel get the grease.
What do I mean by that? I worked in plant maintenance for a decade. I found there are typical two ways that plant maintenance can operate; either you are proactive or reactive.
Proactive is when you have a set maintenance schedule with different tasks that are completed at various timed intervals for the proper maintenance of the equipment. This would be equivalent to the maintenance schedule of your vehicle, where you get your oil changed ever three thousand miles or so, and every other time you get your oil changed, you also have your tires rotated, and so on. This ensures the least amount of down time and your equipment to operate at maximum efficiency.
Reactive is when you are in firefighter mode. This means you run until you can’t and fix as your go. Hence, you only put grease in the bearings of your wheel when it begins to squeak.
Why do it bring this up? Our nation’s squeaky wheel are the minority. They are the ones yelling the loudest but they are not the majority. This is why there is a voice given to things that most people find absurd or ridiculous. And the politicians can only respond to the voices they hear.
I believe the issue is there are too many people that are uninformed or apathetic toward politics and the leading issues of our nation. We are too busy living our lives to get involved, and as a result, we are letting our nation fall to the way side. How long are we going to sit around and do nothing? I wish people would stand up and care again. I wish it were a priority to Americans what our leaders are doing.
Site – US China Trade Reform, VA Reform, Tax Reform, 2nd Amendment Right, Immigration Reform
His site did not really impress me enough to have any type of comments here. I think he lists the least amount of issues out of everyone else’s sites, which speaks volumes by itself.
Debate notes – I honestly do not understand why this man is allowed to run for president at all, let alone on the republican ticket, let alone is currently leading in the Republican Party. I have not found anything he brings to the table that qualifies him to be the next president. One positive thing I can say about him is that he takes no issue speaking his mind and does not hold back any punches. That makes the debates better, I think, but it does not necessarily make him president material.
Now, a lot of people seem to believe that because he is a successful business man that he would be just what our country needs to stimulate our economy. He might, but I seriously doubt it. First of all, I don’t think you can run a presidency as you can a business. And even if it were possible, is that really what we want?
Second, considering he used the loops holes of the system to be a successful businessman, what does that say about his character and ethical standing? Why would you grant power to someone who admits to abusing it? Therefore, I don’t think his experience as a businessman is sufficient enough credentials to qualify him for the position.
Thirdly, he may have some ideas of things that may improve our country, but having ideas and having a well thought out plan are completely different. In his defense in this regard, he has stated that he intends on having the best team available to help develop solutions for these issues. Now, I do not cast stones at a leader who understands his weak points and relies on the strength of others, but if he is going to assemble a team to do his job for him, why do we need him? Anyone can assemble a team; what makes his leadership worthy of the presidency? What exactly does he bring to the table? Would he then just be a face—the very thing people accuse other politicians with lobbyist support of being?
One thing that struck a nerve with me in the second republican debate, two other candidates were asked if they were comfortable with Donald Trump having access to the nuclear codes and both side-stepped the question by stating the public would make that decision with their vote. If you were confident in his ability to make rational decisions, why would you be afraid to make that statement? It’s because they didn’t have that confidence, and neither do I. The difference is that I don’t have to be politically correct on my own blog.
Site – Cyber security, Defeating the Islamic State, Defense and Foreign policy, Education, Energy, Government Reform, Health Care, Immigration, Investigate CAIR, Pro-life, Tax Reform, Veterans
I do like Carson’s approach to dealing with the Islamic State; instead of bombing, he would take back the resources and punish them accordingly.
As far as his site’s layout in presenting the issues, I like how he lists the issues as a doctor would diagnosis an illness and refers to his plan of action as a treatment.
Debate notes – I think it was more the idea of Ben that drew me toward him initially, but after seeing him in the debates, I’m not sure he has what it takes to be the next president. His stances are firm and I don’t think anyone questions his ethical or moral standing, but I wonder if he can handle crisis under pressure. You would think he could, having been a surgeon, but his responses in the debates were less than impressive. I am not saying I would not vote for him if he were to be the republican nominee, I just doubt he will make it. I do think he would serve well as a vice president.
Site – China, Common Core, Cuba, Debt, Eminent Domain, Energy, Foreign Policy, Health Care, Higher Education, Immigration, Internet, Iran, ISIS, Israel, Jobs, Judges, K-12 Education, Life, Military, North Korea, Regulation, Russia, Sanctuary Cities, Second Amendment, Sharing Economy, Social Security & Medicare, Taxes, The VA, Transportation
As far as his stance when it comes to the economy, jobs, and higher education, I definitely believe these issues need to be addressed. It is certainly an issue. I will address that further in another blog post.
I think out of all the candidates, I both liked and disliked his site the most. I liked how he took the time to address the issues, not only in written form, but most of them had videos talking about his stances as well. This is good for people who just wanted to watch a video instead of investing a bunch of time in reading. I didn’t like how it kept popping a disclaimer asking to sign up for notifications.
Debate notes – Out of all of the candidates, I am most impressed by Mr. Rubio. He doesn’t back down from any confrontation, he is respecting of the other candidates, he has actual plans for most of the issues, and has touched on just about every issue out there. This is someone who has done his homework. He is knowledgeable and strategic. Instead of relying on other people on his team to accomplish what it is he wants to accomplish, he seems on top of it himself. And he presents it well. The way he carried himself in the debates lets me know he would serve well as the next president of the United States of America.
Site – Restore the Constitution, Second Amendment Rights, Secure the Border, Defend Our Nation, Stand with Israel, Religious Liberty, Life, Marriage and Family, Jobs and Opportunity, Rein in Washington
When I first looked at his site months ago, I didn’t find anywhere that listed his stance on the issues, which made researching him difficult. That may have been a contributing factor as to why I didn’t warm up to him at first.
Debate notes – I like a lot of what Ted had to say. He is quick to state that he refuses to relent in his pursuits and that he doesn’t have loyalty to his party but loyalty to his causes, which is admirable. But I also feel like that is political proficiency. It’s like he knows what we want to hear and that is what he says. It’s difficult to trust someone like that. If he can be taken at his word and he doesn’t have some hidden agenda, then he is likely the best candidate, but I’m not so convinced. I actually think he would do more good in the Senate than in Washington.
Site – Reform & Growth, Reforming Washington, Defeating ISIS, Border Security, Veterans, Regulatory Reform, Energy Policy, Energy Policy, Health Care Plan, Cybersecurity
Debate notes – I didn’t expect much from Jeb when I first started off researching candidates, but from the very first debate, he surprised me. I was actually impressed with how well he could hold his own and still relatively stay on topic. It was difficult to trip him up on any question he was asked and that impressed me. Even when Trump would repeatedly attack him out right, he did not back down. I liked how he emphasized that he is his own man, branding himself more by his first name than his last.
Site – Tax Reform, Israel, Veterans, Energy, Spending Debt, Undecided Voter, National Security, Seniors, Health Care, Education, Border Security, 2nd Amendment, Family Values, Agriculture
Debate notes – I like Huckabee.
Now, I will state that, even though I am a Christian, I think it is imperative that our president needs to be someone who has the entire country’s best interest in mind, even if that person is not Christian. Yes, you read that correctly. Would I prefer a Christian be in the White House? Likely, yes. But this nation was built on religious freedom, and I wouldn’t want to shove my faith down the entire nation’s throats just as I don’t want people of other religions shoving their faith down my throat. I believe it is more imperative that our nation’s leader be understanding and respectful toward Christianity, whether they are Christian or not. Because as Christians, we know that no man can take any position of authority unless God allows it.
That being said, Huckabee would seem like a great choice for Christians. And I don’t disagree. But I wonder sometimes if his religious agenda bleeds over into his political agenda. When he defended Chick-Fil-A for their stance on traditional marriage, I thought that was great, and I even supported it. When he stood up for the clerk that refused a gay couple their marriage license, I doubted that was the best course of action. I’m not talking about the clerk’s decision, but Huckabee’s decision to intervene.
Let me clarify; when you are a person of influence, you must be careful what you endorse. And though I would not suggest deny their faith because of a desire to save face from a political stand point, there is a point, as a politician, when they must make a decision on if they represent their personal religious convictions, or their political constituents. Maybe these are never different, but I doubt it, and it is definitely something to consider.
Why do I bring this up? As Christians, we are not our own; we have been bought with a price. As such, we are ambassadors of Christ. Therefore, when people ask us our stance, should we give our personal opinion or should we answer the stance of our sovereignty? Ambassadors do not have the luxury of giving their personal opinion; the role they fulfil is to represent their authority. They are not granted their position because of their opinions but because of their ability to accurately represent the dominion they embody.
Case in point; I’ve heard someone say; “I’m a Christian, I just don’t believe in the whole no sex before marriage thing.” I’ve also heard; “I believe in the Bible but I don’t agree what it says about homosexuality.”
So what happens when someone claims to represent something but does not represent it fully? What if you claim a faith but take issue with some of that faith’s statutes? What happens when there is a schism between what you say you represent and what it is you say you represent actually stands for?
Now, I did not bring this up to cast stones at the people who say things like that; I used extreme examples for a reason. The point is that there are very few people of faith who hold the tenants of their faith 100% of the way 100% of the time. My point in bring this up is not to say these people are right or wrong but to show that it does happen. Because even if we as Christians would say that anyone making the statements I listed above aren’t really Christians, it doesn’t chance the fact that they are claiming they are and are therefore seen by the world as Christianity’s representatives. Much like Westboro Baptist Church is giving Christianity a bad name whether we like it or not.
So, say for example you are a Christian and are asked your stance on gay marriage as a Christian, and you happen to have a difference of opinion than that of the tenants of your faith on the issue. How do you respond? As a Christian, you are not your own; you were bought with a price and you are an ambassador of Christ, so as an ambassador, your personal opinion is not as important as representing your sovereignty. It is, then, your duty to represent your faith, not just you opinion.
Which raises the question; do Christians really have the right to have a difference of opinion in regard to the tenants of our faith or the statements of our sacred text considering we were bought with a price and honestly therefore have no actual rights at all?
But I digress.
Taking all of this into consideration, we can see a Christian has a difficult stance as it is. They may have their own opinion, but they have to represent the Kingdom of God also. How much more difficult is it for a Christian to be a politician then? Now he is divided between his own personal convictions, the principles of his faith, and the views of the people he is representing.
Ideally, a Christian political leader would represent a group of like-minded people, but realistically, there are not many exclusively Christian cities, counties, or states in this nation. And to be a political leader, you have a responsibility to represent everyone in your area, not just the ones you agree with or who agree with you.
All that to say my original apprehension with Huckabee is that he may be too Christian, if that makes any sense at all. I actually believe a fanatical Christian is just as dangerous as a fanatical Islamic person. Yeah, I hear you saying that Christian’s don’t strap on bombs and go into public areas, but I remember hearing about abortion clinics being bombed.
However, after seeing Huckabee’s responses in the debates, I do not feel he fits the category of being too Christian. He did very well at tackling whatever was thrown at him and he refused to attack the other candidates, which I greatly respected.
To be honest, I haven’t studied every candidate’s tax reform program in depth, but I definitely like the Fair Tax Huckabee proposes better than any other plan.
Site – Education, National Security, Health Care, Balancing Budgets, Defending the 2nd Amendment, Lifting Up the Most Vulnerable Americans, Respecting the Sanctity of Human Life, Creating Jobs and Strengthen the Economy
Debate notes – I’ll be honest, I knew nothing of this guy before I watched the first Republican debate. One thing I can say about him is that he always boasted about his accomplishments of the past every time he had a chance to speak. Granted, he may be one of the only candidates that actually has a legitimate plan for bring financial stability to the federal government, but he made sure he stated it multiple times each debate.
Site – Alzheimer’s Disease, Campaign finance reform, Campus sexual assault, Climate change and energy, College, Criminal justice reform, Disability rights, Early childhood education, Economy, Gun violence prevention, Health care, Immigration reform, Infrastructure, K–12 education, Labor, LGBT equality, National security, Paid leave, Racial justice, Rural communities, Small business, Social Security and Medicare, Substance use disorder and addiction, Veterans, the armed forces, and their families, Voting rights, Wall Street and corporate America, Women’s rights and opportunity, Workforce and skills
Hillary’s site talks about a lot of different issues. She’s list probably more than any other candidate. Her stance on education is interesting and aligns with the other democrat candidates. But I don’t understand how the democrats find it “just” to tax the rich to pay for the education of the poor. You don’t multiply wealth by dividing it.
Also, I’m not really sure I understand how Hillary can ensure that no student will have to borrow to pay for tuition, books, or fees to attend a 4-year public college. I’m not even sure that’s a viable objective. What happen to earning what you get? Are all students taking full advantage of the free high school education they received? Why would they consider free college with any amount of respect? I’m fairly certain that if you’ve got to earn your degree and fund it yourself, it’s going to mean something more to you.
But looking at the issue from the economy’s view point, what impact is that going to have in the marketplace when bachelor’s degrees are obtained for free? Would not the value of that education count for less as a result? Instead of bringing people up to the level of those who already possess bachelor’s degrees, they will bring the economic value of that education down. The result will be the new minimum requirement for any entry level job will be a bachelor’s degree because the marketplace will say you have to have at least a free education level, which requires all people to have that degree to have the simplest of jobs. As it sits now, you can make a living without a bachelor’s degree; I’m living proof. If bachelor’s degrees are free, it will be an employment bare-minimum requirement.
You’re not going to be able to elevate the poor by bring down everyone else.
On the issue of racial justice, Hillary calls for law enforcement to be required to wear body cameras. It’s easy to demand that because of the recent issues regarding race related crime and police involvement. But is that honestly the best course of action? Is that the best solution we can come up with? Is that the picture we want to paint to our nation that Big Brother is always watching so you better not over-step your bounds? Why can’t we the people demand all public servants to wear body cameras and report directly to us without sifting through the filter of the some biased media station? I wonder if we would know the truth about deleted emails then.
Hillary, as well as all the democratic candidates, talk a lot about health care, saying it is a basic human right. I do not believe health care is a basic human right. Nobody owes you the administration of their life’s work and expertise to you just because you are a human. Or maybe we do not look at the situation from the standpoint of the service provider. Doctor’s may be compassionate and dedicated to making the world a better place, but the underline reason people choose a vocation and gain the education, knowledge and experience in that vocation they have chosen is to provide a living for themselves and their families. Our economy is based on supply and demand. Someone provides a service or a product, and you can choose to purchase that service or product, or not. Why is health care magically different?
But that is the very thing stated on Hillary’s website. There may have been some good that has come from the Affordable Health Care Act, but it is flawed and incomplete. I’ve heard stories of people who can finally have health insurance that were never allowed before due to of pre-existing conditions or age. I can’t say these cases do not exist. But those cases are likely the exception, not the rule. From what I can tell, the majority of the working class people who are healthy, contributors to society have done nothing but suffer as a result of this Act’s implementation. Health insurance premiums as provided by the employer for the individual and the family have skyrocketed since its implementation, they and continue to increase year after year. Not only do premiums increase, but the amount of the benefits decrease. I don’t understand how it can justifiably be considered insurance when the only thing it insures is that using it is going to cost you greatly.
Hillary also talks about mandatory paid family and medical leave as an issue. I wasn’t even aware this was an issue on the table. It sounds nice on the surface, but I don’t think this is a federal issue. It really seems as if the entire point here is to have a “daddy” to go tattle on when you don’t get your way. Your company doesn’t give you time off so you go tell “daddy,” which is the federal government, and they step in and make companies do what they want you to do. Does that not create friction within our economy? We are all free agents; if you don’t like the benefits of one company, leave and get a job at one that does. Why bring the government into it? I guess that is why democrats are pro-union.
How can you mandate a company to guarantee its employees 12 weeks of paid leave? How big would a company have to be to have the ability to afford that provision for every single employee? How important would you have to be to that company to justify that expense? Does everyone in the workplace market have that kind of demand?
What’s funny is right after her statement about this mandatory leave, she says she is a president for small business. I’m not really sure how she can state she would be a president for small businesses when she lists how she intends to mandate small businesses to guarantee they offer 12 weeks of paid leave to its employees. That seems opposed to what small businesses would be able to afford.
One of the final issues Hillary talks about is workforce and skills. I can’t say that I necessarily disagree with her about this topic. Granting companies with incentives and tax credits to provide employees with training and apprenticeship may be a good way to stimulate the economy and workers. I’m not saying it is the best solution or the only viable solution, just that I’m not totally against it. It still is a bit of the government meddling in the affairs of the economy, but that is what the Left is all about it seems.
Debate notes – I work for a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility. I know the grip addiction has on our communities. I understand this is an issue and that it needs to be addressed. But I do not agree with Hillary in this regard. She states that it is not a criminal issue but a health issue. To the point that she believes police officers and fire fighters should have on them the provisions to administer drug overdose antidotes to drug addicts. What kind of cost is that going to incur for personnel training and antidote provisions? As if their jobs were not high-stress enough, now we are going to hang the death of drug users on them because they did not respond in time? This seems like the approach of someone who wants to make law enforcement and fire fighters the liability, not the heroes that they actually are.
It also seems Hillary spent the entire debate sowing division in her own party. She seems like the Trump of the Left, only more knowledgeable.
Site –Income and Wealth Inequality, It’s Time to Make College Tuition Free and Debt Free, Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy, Creating Decent Paying Jobs, A Living Wage, Combating Climate Change to Save the Planet, A Fair and Humane Immigration Policy, Racial Justice, Fighting for Women’s Rights, Fighting for LGBT Equality, Caring for Our Veterans, Medicare For All, Fighting for Disability Rights, Strengthen and Expand Social Security, Fighting to Lower Prescription Drug Prices, Improving the Rural Economy, Reforming Wall Street, Real Family Values, War and Peace, War Should Be the Last Option: Why I Support the Iran Deal, Making the Wealthy, Wall Street, and Large Corporations Pay their Fair Share, How Bernie pays for his proposals
The biggest thing Bernie talks about is income inequality. The entire concept of income inequality blows my mind. We are a capitalist nation. Our economy is based on supply and demand. In such a nation, the rate something goes for is based on its supply and its demand. Not all knowledge, skills, expertise and experience is equal, so why should we believe all income should be equal? Do we really want a society where the same person who changes the sheets at a Motel 6 has the same wage as the doctor performing brain surgery on your only child? And if so, who is going to set the price for this income equality? Because I am pretty sure if we set the income of every American, despite the job title, to the national average, most politicians would jump ship because their meal ticket is over.
No, there is a gap in income between jobs because there is a gap in level of responsibility and requirement for expertise between jobs. It is cliché to state this here, but this proposal seems more like socialism. What does it matter if the top 1% possess 90% of the nation’s wealth? Why is that evil? Why is that bad? Why should the success of a group of people equate to everyone else’s seeming failure? Why should successful people be penalized because poor people are poor?
Next, Bernie talks about the federal government making money off students through their student loans. I do agree that the federal government should stop making a profit off of student loans. But I just don’t see how providing free college is going to solve the problem.
Bernie, as well as all the democratic candidates, talks about his goal of raising the minimum wage to $15/hour. Raising the minimum wage will not result in bringing people above the poverty line. History has shown governmental regulation typically has a negative effect on the economy, not a positive one.
If anything, I believe the minimum wage should be abolished altogether. Why? Because this is an economy based on supply and demand. Labor is a commodity, and people of the work force supply the economy’s demand for labor. A lack of supply typically increases demand. If you have no work, you would be happy to have a job for $1/hour, because $1/hour is better than $0/hour. The problem is not that there is a lack of jobs, but there are a lack of people willing to do the jobs that do not pay as well as people want. Because, for some reason, someone has put it in their minds that they are worth more than their skills dictate.
Simply put: if we want to make more than minimum wage, make we need to make ourselves worth more than minimum wage. We must position ourselves to be in higher demand. It is not the government’s responsibility to make us worth more than we are currently.
We are not talking about intrinsic value of human life; we are talking economic value. Intrinsically, you are, and every single person on this earth is, worth the Blood of Jesus, since He died for our sins. But this economy does not acknowledge the Blood of Jesus as legal tender for the goods and services we desire, and neither do our bills and creditors. We do not barter with the value of our lives in an economic-driven society; we barter with the potential economic value that our lives can contribute into an economic-driven society. Whose responsibility is it then to develop our personal potential economic value?
And don’t play the lack of education card. I have no engineering degree, yet I am an engineer. I have no theology degree, yet I have served as a college and career pastor. I have no literary degree, yet I am a writer. I have no music degree, yet I have traveled the country playing music and lead worship nationally and internationally. I have no teaching degree, yet I have taught in a college and two different schools of ministry (one of which in Russia). I am no more blessed or special or privileged than anyone else. It’s easy to find excuses; I dare we find results.
Under “Racial Justice” Bernie has the following quote: “We must demilitarize our police forces so they don’t look and act like invading armies.” When is the last time you walked into the ghetto unarmed and unaccompanied? It’s not a race issue; it’s a protection issue. I would almost state that anybody who can be put in a position to mandate what our law enforcement can and cannot wear should have to serve as one in the ghetto first. I guarantee you their opinion would change. Again, that’s not a race issue; I would heed the same caution in a ghetto, a barrio, china town, or a trailer park.
Tax is an interesting subject. Evidently both sides of the fence realize a need to change what is currently in place. I don’t see why most people want to tax the rich the most. That’s like saying we are a nation of wealth, but we are going to penalize you if you are too wealthy. Is that the message we want to send?
Debate notes – Not only does Bernie want to take blame from drug users; he wants to place the blame on pharmaceutical companies. This sounds like “the devil made me do it.” Is there no such thing as personal accountability anymore?
Site – Worker’s Bill of Rights, American Cities and Communities, Keeping America Safe, Health Care, The American Dream, Veterans and Military Families, Trade Policy, National Service, Financial Reform, Clean Energy Future, Addiction Treatment, Campaign Finance Reform, Gun Reform, Expand Social Security, Criminal Justice Reform, Immigration Reform, Debt-free College, Foreign Policy
Debate notes – I had never heard of this guy, but he was the most impressive of the democratic candidates in the debate, honestly. He emphasized a need to bring unity to the nation. That’s a difficult task, and I’m not certain it can happen, honestly, but he spent more time talking about unity than division.
Site – A Green New Deal, Jobs as a Right, End Poverty, Health Care as a Right, Education as a Right, A Just Economy, Protect Mother Earth, Freedom and Equality, Justice For All, Peace and Human Rights, Empower the People
Notes – I do not believe Jobs, Health Care, or Education is a right. And if it were, that would be the platform for someone running for president of the world, not just the United States. Are were going to go give jobs, health care, and education to each human being on the earth? That’s a nice, warm, fuzzy thought, but it’s not going to happen. I wonder if democrats have a different definition for the words “right” and “just” and “equality” like they do for the word “marriage.” I guess so. I’d like to see that dictionary so I am not surprised by the next trend that surfaces.
These candidates talk about ending poverty. What have they personally done to do so? Think about all the money people contributed to the many different candidates that are no longer running for president. What impact on poverty would those funds have had? What about what the campaign contributions still yet to come? After the primaries, how many candidates will be left? What if they decided to end poverty in the United States just by taking their campaign contributions and giving it first to the homeless, then to those below the poverty line?
Now this may come as a shock to some but I do not believe it is the federal government’s responsibility to make sure poverty is eliminated in this nation. It is a noble cause, and I am not saying it shouldn’t be undertaken; I’m just questioning whose responsibility it falls unto. I believe that is the cause the Church should stand up and tackle. That’s in the Bible and I doubt I have to quote it for it to carry its weight. But looking at it from a political stand point, churches and religious organizations are considered non-profit organizations and are exempt from taxes. Right there is a plethora of funding that is legally allowed to go toward the plight. Maybe the sermons on tithes and offerings would carry more weight if those funds were seen doing beneficial work other than paying for the pastor’s second house.
Bing Political Index
Compares candidate on different issues, informs who is still in the race.
My stance on the issues:
I believe in life. But I believe in choice. I am not pro-choice; I am pro-life. It is not that pro-life is anti-choice or that pro-choice is pro-death. That is a divisive stance. What good is life without the ability to choose and make our own decisions? Did not God grant us the ability to choose His Son’s sacrifice for our sins? There is power in having a free will. I do not think I would ever support someone’s decision to have an abortion. Moreover, anyone I could talk to about an abortion I would tell about different options to consider.
But, in the end, I know people are going to do what they want to do despite any and all opposition. As such, I would rather someone who chooses to have an abortion to have access to a professional medical doctor to have it done, and I would not want that doctor to be in fear of operating in his or her chosen practice.
To label abortion “murder” is to attempt to legislate morality, which I don’t believe our federal government has the right to do. The problem is we have far too many aspects of our life regulated, labeled, and made illegal already—adding legislation will not solve this issue.
As far as Planned Parenthood is concerned, I have no idea why federal money was ever sent to that organization and it should be stopped at once.
As someone who works in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation facility, I understand the importance of this epidemic. I do believe there needs to be some sort of resolution, but I do not think that will come from bigger government. Anything that takes personal responsibility from the individual will not yield positive results. But neither will judgement and condemnation.
To be honest, I am not certain what Common Core is, but from what I have heard and seen it seems very counter-intuitive. I do agree with what the majority of the republican candidates stated; that issues involving education should remain on the local level, not the federal level.
I do not believe greater gun legislation is going to stop gun violence. I think there should be a background check for anyone who wants to own a firearm. I don’t think that is unreasonable. I also think that there should be a learner’s permit process and a training class, kind of like what we have in place when youth attempt to obtain their driver’s license. I think there should be a class that needs to be taken, and so much time logged under supervision before a permit can be issued. This way there is a greater sense of accountability associated with the purchase and someone has to sign off on the person. Then again, I don’t think this is a federal issue, but a state issue.
There is obviously a big problem with what we have currently. The democrats praise the Affordable Health Care Act, saying that they have the ability to provide thousands of people who had no health insurance the ability to have health care. The problem? There is now a great penalty if you don’t have health insurance. What sense does that make? That seems counter-productive. If the goal was to provide people who can’t afford health insurance, why tax them for not being able to afford health insurance? And the grace period is not sufficient when changing jobs, considering new jobs typically force you to make it through a 90-day probation period before offering health insurance. Who thought that was a good idea?
If we are honestly concerned about our borders and we have even hired a Board Patrol, it makes absolutely no sense that a wall doesn’t already exist. Granted, a wall will not fix everything, but I figured a wall would have been less expensive than manning a fence with board patrol. Now, I don’t agree with Trump on many things, but I do agree that we shouldn’t automatically grant citizenship to children that are born here if their parents are not legal residents. That law never made sense to me. Now, I am not inhumane, and I would not support ripping families apart in the deportation process, but there does need to be some enforcement in immigration control. Many candidates have plans of action in this regard.
I think it is funny how people state that people are born gay, with no choice, but the new trend is that people can choose what sex they identify themselves as and we as a society are expected to accept it. I believe that is completely backwards. Gender is a fact of birth; sexual orientation is a preference of choice. The definition of a homosexual is someone who practices homosexuality. It is an action. Actions are a result of the will, derived from a choice. People would rather blame the nature of their birth than to be held accountable for their actions and desires.
I can agree that if people were born either heterosexual or homosexual, then it would be unjust to persecute people for something they had no control over. But that is where we disagree; people have a choice in what they do with their body and with whom. They always do. We have free will. No one made me marry a woman and I wasn’t born predisposed to marry Emily; I chose to walk down that aisle.
And just like abortion, people are going to do what they are going to do. As a Christian, it is not my goal to stop homosexuality. Why? It’s not my job. My job is to love. And I do not believe it is the federal government’s responsibility or right to pass legislation that requires people of faith to accept a lifestyle into their community that they feel is an abomination.
Further, I believe this is a community-based issue. I do not think legislation is required, but if it were, it should be on a local level.
There definitely needs to be a tax reform. I like the fair tax act that captures tax on all people, not just those gaining a wage. I also liked the concept of a flat income tax, but I would modify it so that it includes all types of income, no matter what form it takes. Maybe a combination of the plans Huckabee and Carson proposed.
I think the bottom line comes down to what it is you want. Do you want to be your own person, making decisions for yourself, or do you want someone else to think for you and tell you what you can and cannot do? Do you want to be a responsibility adult and be held accountable for your actions, or would you prefer to be treated as an adolescent who cannot be trusted to make decisions on their own? Because this really comes down to big government or little government. Little government depends on people being responsible for themselves and being held responsible for their decisions. Big government does everything for you and everyone gets a trophy, because you are a pretty and unique snowflake…
….just like everyone else…