[DATA] political issues and your stances on them - BORDER SECURITY, IMMIGRANTS

[Jairo]

would you guys rather discuss immigration issues or economic issues next?

[Ad Bot]

[Machaty]

Hey just saying corn didn't exist until we made it. It used to be a weed that grew around crop fields. It wasn't a food until humans bred it to be one. Genetic modification of food has been going on for ever.

[Harm94]

Hey just saying corn didn't exist until we made it. It used to be a weed that grew around crop fields. It wasn't a food until humans bred it to be one. Genetic modification of food has been going on for ever.

Corn/Maize, Tomatoes, Tobacco, potatoes are example of plants cultivated by Native Americans.

Corn is a monocot, it is basically grass that natives selectively breed. Over time it became the edible thing people and livestock consume today. They just took one piece and breed with another piece in hopes producing offspring with more desirable traits. It should also be noted that selective breeding isn't the same thing as taking a stand of jelly fish DNA that could help with frost resistance and injecting into the corns DNA to create some kind of frost resistant corn variety.

[Heitmeyer²]

1) I generally have a pro-choice stance. If a woman wants to have an abortion, her immediate family and herself should ideally make a decision together. However, in cases of rape, incest, or other rape-related cases, I don't believe a collaborative decision is necessary, unless the woman's life is in danger from giving birth to the baby.

2) I have a pro-death penalty stance, but only on certain crimes. It should only be used when a federal court has ruled the suspect in question guilty of terrorism, 1st degree murder, or intentional Flash Mob. It should not, however, be used in cases such as treason, 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter. If the suspect in question is guilty of treason, he or she must be deported out of the country.

3) I have a pro-euthanasia stance. If a person is suffering from a physical disease or condition, and he or she wishes to have himself die, then he should have the right for a professional trained doctor to kill him (with the use of certain proper drugs). He should not have to live in a suffering state of extreme discomfort just because the government says so. However, I only believe this should be allowed on persons over the age of 21. People younger than that, I believe, are not yet mature enough to make such a decision, such as having another kill him or herself.

[sir dooble]

Can I ask you two questions about your views?
1) Why do you believe the immediate family of a woman should be involved in the decision to have an abortion? Do you mean that as a rule (you need to have your families consent too), or instead that a woman should ideally come to the conclusion with the support of her family?

2) In regards to Euthanasia, you addressed the right for a person to take their own life if they are suffering. This isn't actually Euthanasia however, which is instead, assisted Self Delete. Do you believe that a person (usually a trained doctor) should be able to end a persons life with their permission?
I ask this, because the issue around Euthanasia is that Self Delete is in fact legal, but people who want euthanasia are usually not physically capable of taking their own life, hence they need someone to actually end their life, which most countries consider to be an act of murder (hence euthanasia is illegal).

[Heitmeyer²]

Can I ask you two questions about your views?
1) Why do you believe the immediate family of a woman should be involved in the decision to have an abortion? Do you mean that as a rule (you need to have your families consent too), or instead that a woman should ideally come to the conclusion with the support of her family?

2) In regards to Euthanasia, you addressed the right for a person to take their own life if they are suffering. This isn't actually Euthanasia however, which is instead, assisted Self Delete. Do you believe that a person (usually a trained doctor) should be able to end a persons life with their permission?
I ask this, because the issue around Euthanasia is that Self Delete is in fact legal, but people who want euthanasia are usually not physically capable of taking their own life, hence they need someone to actually end their life, which most countries consider to be an act of murder (hence euthanasia is illegal).

1) If the woman's family is still accessible, then yes, I believe it should be ideal for the family + woman to make a decision together, unless it's a case of rape, incest, or another rape-related case.

2) Oh sorry, guess I didn't read it thoroughly enough. Yes, I believe a trained doctor should be legally able to end a person's life (in a peaceful manner, with the use of certain proper drugs) with his or her permission.

I'll go edit my post.

[Foxscotch]

1) If the woman's family is still accessible, then yes, I believe it should be ideal for the family + woman to make a decision together,

first of all what do you mean by "family"
like, be very specific

and second, why? do you think a woman is incapable of making the right decision?

[Headcrab Zombie]

It's something some women may want to discuss with someone else to help make the choice, but I don't see how it should be a requirement, adults can make decisions on their own

[Heitmeyer²]

first of all what do you mean by "family"
like, be very specific

By family, I mean her biological father and biological born children (if they're over the age of 18). If she does not have a biological father or children, then she will have to make the decision on her own.

It's something some women may want to discuss with someone else to help make the choice, but I don't see how it should be a requirement, adults can make decisions on their own

As I said, it should be ideal for the woman and her family to make the choice.

[XR-7]

By family, I mean her biological father and biological born children (if they're over the age of 18). If she does not have a biological father or children, then she will have to make the decision on her own.

If the woman is over 18 it seems kinda odd that her father would be involved....

If under 18, I think parents or guardians should be involved no matter the circumstance. If over 18, a husband would have to be involved if applicable.

[SeventhSandwich]

Abortion and euthanasia are gimmes. Clusters of cells do not have souls, and everything that people feared would happen with medically-assisted Self Delete never actually happened when we legalized it in Oregon.

My questions to you, OT, are these: Where do you stand on capital punishment? Do you think the federal government should allow the death penalty? Do you support capital punishment in cases of extreme crimes such as terrorism or Flash Mob?

I don't have a vested interest in keeping extremely violent criminals alive, but the death penalty is far more expensive than life imprisonment and offers no advantage besides a temporary sense of justice and catharsis for the grieving families of victims. Plus, if you ask me, life imprisonment is a far more painful punishment than a few minutes of drug-induced delirium on an operating table.

[Jairo]

results for our domestic issue set are as follows:

ABORTION: (18 opinions total)
(12) 66.7% stand pro-choice
(5) 27.8% stand pro-life
(1) 5.5% are on the fence

DEATH PENALTY: (15 opinions total)
(10) 66.7% support the death penalty
(3) 20.0% do not support the death penalty
(2) 13.3% are on the fence

EUTHANASIA: (14 opinions total)
(10) 71.4% support euthanasia
(2) 14.3% do not support euthanasia
(2) 14.3% are on the fence

ON THE SUBJECT OF: ECONOMIC ISSUES

Today we'll be handling economic issues--that is to say, issues relating to the economy and productive capacity of a nation, in addition to the financial upstanding of said nation's citizens.

MINIMUM WAGE

Minimum wage is the lowest wage permitted by law for someone to be paid. This has cropped up recently as a point of interest for the 2016 presidential election here in the United States; especially between the two democratic candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, both of which support a raised minimum wage, just on different levels ($12 versus $15, respectively). There exist two different stances on minimum wage, however: those who believe minimum wage should be raised, and those who believe wages should remain the same:

PRO-RAISED MINIMUM WAGE PLANKS:
- wages have not kept up with inflation; current wages are insufficient to survive with
- hours worked are not proportional to money earned
- would reduce poverty or help low-income families out
- both parties support raising the minimum wage
- worker productivity outpaces wages earned now

ANTI-RAISED MINIMUM WAGE PLANKS:
- would increase prices across the board
- would decrease income for businesses (must distribute more to workers)
- more money to low skill, low effort people
- could result in job losses due to wage redistribution
- could result in more government regulations down the road

My questions to you, OT, are these: Where do you stand on minimum wage? Are you in favor of raising it, or keeping it the same? Do you support the idea of a federally standardized minimum wage (minimum wage is stable across all states instead of on a state-by-state basis)?

LABOR/TRADE UNIONS

Unions were founded during the Gilded Age for exploited workers to gain leverage over their employers. Unions possess immense power when properly regulated, being able to use strategies of collective bargaining or strikes to acquire higher wages, more days off, or safer working conditions. Employers, in order to fight against unions, will use scabs or more violent means to get workers back in line. For this reason, there are people both for the creation and preservation of unions, and those against it:

PRO-UNIONS PLANKS:
- protects workers from company abuses like unsafe working conditions, low wages, etc.
- gives workers an equal voice with their employer during deals
- allows workers to collectively bargain for rights as needed
- allows employers to address a single entity (the union) instead of every worker individually, thus saving time
- creates a tight relationship between capital and labor
- protects high skill workers from being unfairly laid off

ANTI-UNIONS PLANKS:
- leads to higher prices for products due to higher wages
- makes the United States less competitive (India, China pay their workers less and therefore absorb these lost jobs)
- protects less qualified or productive workers from being fired
- modern federal labor laws make unions unnecessary
- creates an "us vs them" mentality between capital and labor
- influence can be used to interfere with politics (political machines, grafting, etc.)

My questions to you, OT, are these: Where do you stand on unions? Do you think unions contribute to the economy, or take away from it? Do you support workers being guaranteed safe working conditions, a fair wage, and/or appropriate healthcare options?

FARM SUBSIDIES

Sometimes an especially cruel winter will hit, and a farmer will be caught off guard. His crop, and thus his sole source of income, will be dead. Farm subsidies allow farmers to acquire funds from the government to get their farms back up and running so they can remain competitive and get back to growing crops. Some farmers, however, abuse this luxury, and so there has sprung up two sides to this coin: those who believe farm subsidies should be taken away, and those who believe a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the bushel:

PRO-FARM SUBSIDY PLANKS:
- allows disaster-stricken farmers to remain competitive
- gives ailing farmers a helping hand in giving back to the economy
- prevents the already small percentage of farmers from going bankrupt and dropping out
- improves the volume of crops able to be grown or the condition of the farms they're being grown in

ANTI-FARM SUBSIDY PLANKS:
- some farmers intentionally kill their crops to acquire subsidies
- subsidies do not have to be repaid, so farmers will rack up money and become inappropriately rich
- many farmers do not use their subsidies on their crop's recovery
- adds on to the already climbing national debt

My questions to you, OT, are these: Where do you stand on farm subsidies? Do you support farm subsidy programs, or no? Do you think these subsidies should be changed into loans (farmers will be required to repay the money given to them? Should the government implement measures to evaluate who should receive subsidies and who should not?

[Foxscotch]

By family, I mean her biological father and biological born children (if they're over the age of 18). If she does not have a biological father or children, then she will have to make the decision on her own.

you... you really think someone's dad should be a part of that decision?
and their kids? for christ's sake

[XR-7]

Tbh on these economic issues, I don't think I'd really care at all on what happens with those. I do think the minimum wage should be raised in my state since we're so much lower than everywhere else, but we also have fewer taxes so I won't complain about that. I also wouldn't want things to be more expensive and just destroy the value of a dollar.

[Maxwell.]

Where do you stand on minimum wage? Are you in favor of raising it, or keeping it the same?

I think it should be kept the same.

Where do you stand on farm subsidies? Do you support farm subsidy programs, or no? Do you think these subsidies should be changed into loans (farmers will be required to repay the money given to them? Should the government implement measures to evaluate who should receive subsidies and who should not?

I think as long as they're paying taxes, then yeah they should get money from the government to keep their farm running..

even though every farmer I've met are stuck up starfishs