Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed

  • News
  • Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Support
In summary: Mostly unregulated imports and trade -- I'm all for it. Less government interference is always a good thing.Elimination of the National debt -- Meh, I could go either way on this one.Throw out the existing tax structure -- I don't like the current tax system, but I don't like the idea of completely replacing it with something I'm not familiar with either.Increase taxes on the rich -- Meh, I don't really have an opinion on this one. Several of those were too vague or too specific (simplistic) to really answer, but depending on the specifics of the proposals, I might support any of the last

Check what you support

  • Ban all private gun ownership [more or less]

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • Abortion made illegal

    Votes: 10 16.7%
  • Amnesty for illegal aliens

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Allow domestic wire taps without oversight

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • Strong environmental protection laws

    Votes: 39 65.0%
  • Mostly unregulated imports and trade

    Votes: 18 30.0%
  • Elimination of the National debt

    Votes: 38 63.3%
  • Throw out the existing tax structure

    Votes: 30 50.0%
  • Increase taxes on the rich

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • None of the above

    Votes: 4 6.7%

  • Total voters
    60
  • #36
jimmysnyder said:
In my vision of society people would have as much freedom of choice as makes sense and no more. After all, rapists would not be allowed freedom to choose their victims in your vision of society, right?
This is a strange analogy, since by saying that rapists do not have the freedom to choose victims, then you are implying that rapists' victims are fixed by someone else. What you mean is that rapists should not have the freedom to decide whether they rape someone or not. And, of course they shouldn't, but then rape is detrimental and does not serve any useful purpose.
Why are you against freedom of choice? In my vision, women would still have the right to choose, but not the right to choose murder any more than men would.
So, what about a woman who was raped. She should not be allowed to terminate the child? If you make abortion illegal on the grounds that no one should be allowed to murder, then you can't allow abortions in some cases and not others. What about the 15, or younger, year old girl who made a naive mistake? Should she have to ruin her life, throw away her education, and bring up a child that she doesn't really want?

It's not as simple as just saying "ban all abortions."
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Why is it that abortion defenders always dwell on that .2% of special cases of rape and health? Because they do not wish to discuss the 99.8% of the cases, which are abortions used as a form of birth control by those too lazy and stupid to use something profoundly more convenient and profoundly more accepted by the majority.
 
  • #38
fleem said:
Why is it that abortion defenders always dwell on that .2% of special cases of rape and health? Because they do not wish to discuss the 99.8% of the cases, which are abortions used as a form of birth control by those too lazy and stupid to use something profoundly more convenient and profoundly more accepted by the majority.

I'm not dwelling on what seems to be some random percentage you've plucked out of the air. I'm simply saying that, if you make abortion illegal, then you can have no excpetions. So, the statistics don't matter in this case, since there are lives that will be ruined by the fact that they could not abort the baby. It doesn't matter what proportion of these make up the total.

Note, I'm not condoning abortions used as contraception. I'm just saying that it would be foolish to make abortions illegal.
 
  • #39
cristo said:
If you make abortion illegal on the grounds that no one should be allowed to murder, then you can't allow abortions in some cases and not others.
But those are not my grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide" [Broken]

cristo said:
What about the 15, or younger, year old girl who made a naive mistake? Should she have to ruin her life, throw away her education, and bring up a child that she doesn't really want?
By all means.

cristo said:
It's not as simple as just saying "ban all abortions."
I didn't say that. It's an example of the vagueness of the poll questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #40
cristo said:
What you mean is that rapists should not have the freedom to decide whether they rape someone or not
And what you mean is that women should have the freedom to decide whether to abort or not. Why did you bring up the issue of freedom of choice at all then. As far as I know, freedom of choice is not a legal right, it's a slogan for selling hamburger sandwiches.
 
  • #41
cristo said:
I'm not dwelling on what seems to be some random percentage you've plucked out of the air. I'm simply saying that, if you make abortion illegal, then you can have no excpetions. So, the statistics don't matter in this case, since there are lives that will be ruined by the fact that they could not abort the baby. It doesn't matter what proportion of these make up the total.

Note, I'm not condoning abortions used as contraception. I'm just saying that it would be foolish to make abortions illegal.

Yes, I guess having a law with certain execeptions would be an unreasonable request of our lawmakers. We certainly wouldn't want them to get too confused.
 
  • #42
jimmysnyder said:
But those are not my grounds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide" [Broken]
It seems that we don't actually disagree at all! Sorry for misinterpreting your comments.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #43
fleem said:
Yes, I guess having a law with certain execeptions would be an unreasonable request of our lawmakers.

My point is, where do you draw the line? You can't possibly put every clause of exception into such a law.
 
  • #44
cristo said:
My point is, where do you draw the line? You can't possibly put every clause of exception into such a law.

According to a recent Gallup poll, 61% of people are against generally available (not rape or health-related) abortions. Yet lawmakers do not provide a referendum to make that opinion official, nor do they even provide the most lenient of laws designed to unquestionably have no impact on those very few abortions that really are health or rape-related. This shows that the lawmakers are obviously disobeying the will of the people. For example, we are not even provided a law like, "A woman that has had three abortions within ten years will pay a fine of $100". Surely that wouldn't hit that many rape or health related abortions, but would stop at least some casual abortions. We don't even get that! So it is the lobbyists that run the country rather than the people.
 
  • #45
russ_watters said:
I would, however, support the closing of a number of tax loopholes, such as the use of capital gains as income being taxable as income. Of course, I'd also want to include in that another exception for waiving capital gains for someone selling one house to buy another one.
Wouldn't this hurt the middle class more than it hurts the rich? For most middle class people like myself, and probably you, our retirement depends entirely on how we invest our money. People think a 401k (US) or RRSP (Canada) is tax free, but it's only tax free until you sell it. Once you start selling that off, you'll find the government is taking a significant chunk of your retirement. From what I can find on wiki, the tax rate on stock for the lowest 2 income brackets in the US is 5%, or 15% past 30k per individual, which would be 60k per couple. That seems fairly reasonable. In Canada you pay 50% of your normal rate; so if your regular tax rate was 30% for that income bracket, the tax on capital gains would be 15%. That's a bit higher, but still manageable.

If you remove the capital gains tax loophole, you're talking about literally doubling the tax rate on every middle class person.


Also, I didn't vote for higher tax on rich people because that wouldn't accomplish anything. Politicians would just piss it away like they do now.
 
  • #46
ShawnD said:
Wouldn't this hurt the middle class more than it hurts the rich? For most middle class people like myself, and probably you, our retirement depends entirely on how we invest our money. People think a 401k (US) or RRSP (Canada) is tax free, but it's only tax free until you sell it. Once you start selling that off, you'll find the government is taking a significant chunk of your retirement. From what I can find on wiki, the tax rate on stock for the lowest 2 income brackets in the US is 5%, or 15% past 30k per individual, which would be 60k per couple. That seems fairly reasonable. In Canada you pay 50% of your normal rate; so if your regular tax rate was 30% for that income bracket, the tax on capital gains would be 15%. That's a bit higher, but still manageable.

If you remove the capital gains tax loophole, you're talking about literally doubling the tax rate on every middle class person.


Also, I didn't vote for higher tax on rich people because that wouldn't accomplish anything. Politicians would just piss it away like they do now.
Withdrawals from a 401k are treated as regular income, not capital gains.
 
  • #47
Woops, you're right. 401k and RRSP are taxed as normal income because you didn't pay income tax to fund either of them. It's the ones outside of that where you pay capital gains.

In any event, middle class people usually have investment plans on the side as well. It's sort of an unwritten rule that you keep bonds in your 401k/RRSP and stocks outside of that, because bonds have the higher tax rate. If you ask somebody about their stock portfolio, there's a good chance everything/most is held outside of their 401k.
 
Last edited:
  • #48
Ivan Seeking said:
Which positions or agendas do you support [U.S.]?

'Strong environmental protection laws' is the one I probably feel strongest about. Specifically, I believe people have should have the right to clean air. I don't want people coughing up black goo here in the US like they do in Europe. That's is just unacceptable.
 
  • #49
The options provide a pretty limited choice of yes/no and require some reading between the lines to figure out what you're really asking (which might be the reason only 3 received 50% or more support).

Ban all private gun ownership [more or less] - NO, although I do support some gun control laws. Since I don't believe in very restrictive gun control laws, no seemed to fit best.

Abortion made illegal - YES, which isn't exactly true, but I do think we need more restrictive abortion laws.

Amnesty for illegal aliens - YES. I don't like the wording, but a yes comes closest to my opinion. Deporting everyone in the US illegally isn't a very realistic option and the immigration problem is blown way beyond the priority it deserves in any event.

Allow domestic wire taps without oversight - NO. The wording of the choice doesn't really capture current issues over electronic surveillance, but I'd answer NO to a question about the current surveillance policies as well.

Strong environmental protection laws - YES comes the closest to my position in that I tend to view most environmental protection laws favorably, at least initially. (How much am I willing to pay for stronger environmental protection laws would be a tougher question.)

Mostly unregulated imports and trade - YES

Elimination of the National debt - YES, although a more accurate statement would be a major reduction in debt. Total elimination isn't worth the effort and could be undesirable economically in any event.

Throw out the existing tax structure - NO.

Increase taxes on the rich - YES. Or decrease spending. I guess most of the solutions I favor for current problems right now would effectively involve rasing taxes for the rich (fighting a war and cutting taxes at the same time is pretty ludicrous, for example). I'm not pro-tax in general, but it's more important that tax policies adapt to current problems. In fact, paying for policies as you go does a better job forcing people to decide just how important a particular problem is to them. It's pretty easy to favor nice things if you don't have to pay for them until some indefinite time in the future.
 
  • #50
cristo said:
My point is, where do you draw the line? You can't possibly put every clause of exception into such a law.

You have to draw a line somewhere, regardless. Drawing the line at the moment of birth may be the simplest place to draw the line, since it's a line pretty obvious to everyone, but valuing simplicity a tad bit blindly is hardly an improvement on valuing life a tad bit blindly.

(I think claiming "valuing life a tad blindly" would improve mankind's chances of survival was a pretty thin argument, by the way; especially since it could actually reduce mankind's chances of survival if the size of human population bumps up against the limits of the Earth's resources.)
 
  • #51
With regard to abortion (and I'm thinking that specific posts on this topic should probably be split into another thread...)

...but anyways, my main question is this: what is considered a person and therefore a member of society. Persons have (or should have) fundamental rights granted by the collection of all persons that form our society. All else is property.

In my opinion, a fertilized egg is clearly no more a human being than an egg and a sperm taken separately, or the cells that carry full human genes in your appendix. The argument that "life begins at conception" is arbitrary; it disregards the fact that both the sperm and the egg are already alive even before they meet. The biochemical process that joins the genetic material contained in both cells is mechanistic. I don't see this as the decisive event.

On the other hand, a newborn baby is clearly a person in my mind and a member of society in spite of its inability to do anything useful at the moment. This judgment appears to be based on my personal and clearly emotional response to a creature that is independently alive and breathing. Also, the obvious: this person now has the potential to become anything, independently of the mother.

The tough part of course is to determine the point between conception and birth when property becomes person. At this time I feel, more than reason, that independence from the womb is the key. This means the ability to breathe and to nurse naturally, without the seemingly endless supply of medical science and equipment now available to support vital life signs where and when they would normally stop. This entails my support for abortion of the non-viable and my opposition for abortion of the viable.

While this principle works for me, legal aspects are a different matter. Since there is no precise and consistent age where independent viability occurs then some kind of average needs to be picked based on best available information. I would yield the floor to medical experts and legislators for this part of the debate.
 
  • #52
ShawnD said:
Wouldn't this hurt the middle class more than it hurts the rich? For most middle class people like myself, and probably you, our retirement depends entirely on how we invest our money.
That wasn't a fully-developed proposal I gave, just an idea. I would want to target it to people who actually get paid via stocks (options and grants) as opposed to retirement investors. You could easily enact a provision to tax a stock option at the time it is exercised (you'd have to immediatly sell ~25% of your stocks to pay the tax on it). You could also put age restrictions on it. I'd get rid of the estate tax, but then make it so that a young, able-bodied 'old money' type who doesn't work and gets all their spending money from their trust fund would pay income tax on it (yeah, Paris Hilton, I'm talking to you!).

I have a Roth IRA, which is taxed now and not taxed at all later. They are now starting to give people Roth 401ks, which work on the same principle.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
mheslep said:
Ok, but at one point do you believe the human being comes into existence?

This should answer some other posts as well.

When is the unborn considered human instead of potentially-human? Definitely not before sometime between weeks 26-28 when higher conscious thought becomes psysically possible. I consider a human being a human when these processes turn on, something studies are beginning to suggest doesn't happen until well after birth. Living in the American midwest I'm still waiting in the case of most of my neighbors and relatives.

That last one was a joke. If you didn't realize that it it may be relavent to you.


But that's not the reason I'm pro-choice. If a woman I've never met wants to have an abortion, do I have the right to ask why? Do you have the right to ask why?

My belief is no. Unless I am going to be a male caregiver if not the father I fell I really have no right to force complete strangers to live their lives as I see fit. Neither does anyone else. You can be outraged all you like but I feel that unless you are the biological father or will be the man who will help raise the child I think you have no right to tell any woman wether or not they can have an abortion or not.

It's not a question of the humanity or potential humanity of the child so much as a consideration of how much power I feel I should have over the lives of other people. In my opinion no amount of power is justified unless my liberty or life is at stake, and all I ask in return is the same curtesy. I won't force you to live how I want you to live if in return you do the same.
 
  • #54
GleefulNihilism said:
But that's not the reason I'm pro-choice. If a woman I've never met wants to have an abortion, do I have the right to ask why? Do you have the right to ask why?

My belief is no. Unless I am going to be a male caregiver if not the father I fell I really have no right to force complete strangers to live their lives as I see fit.

This isn't like smoking a cigarette in the privacy of your own home. You are, in my opinion, killing another human being for your own benefit.

The way you and some others put it, it sounds like you don't want any limits on freedom. Honestly, if you don't have the right to make laws against murder, then what do we have the right to make laws against? But you don't seem like an anarchist. So is it really that you approve of murder, or is it you simply don't think a fetus is a human being? Because I find the latter to be a lot more reasonable than the former, even though I'm pro-life.
 
  • #55
Contrapositive said:
So is it really that you approve of murder, or is it you simply don't think a fetus is a human being?

I don't mean to speak for others but I doubt that anybody approves of murder. So the answer ought to be in the second part of your question: what do you consider to be a human being? The pro-life/pro-choice disagreement is mainly a debate on where this line should be drawn. Strong pro-lifers may say as soon as a sperm enters an egg. Why? Why not. Strong pro-choicers may say at birth. Why? Why not. A human being is whatever human beings say that it is.
 
  • #56
jimmysnyder said:
And what you mean is that women should have the freedom to decide whether to abort or not. Why did you bring up the issue of freedom of choice at all then. As far as I know, freedom of choice is not a legal right, it's a slogan for selling hamburger sandwiches.

Wendy's comes to mind...
 
  • #57
As far as I know, freedom of choice is not a legal right
Hmmmm. Perhaps most assume that freedom of choice is implicit within life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Or does one only have rights that are explicitly provided by some document or by some majority of others?
 
  • #58
out of whack said:
I don't mean to speak for others but I doubt that anybody approves of murder. So the answer ought to be in the second part of your question: what do you consider to be a human being? The pro-life/pro-choice disagreement is mainly a debate on where this line should be drawn. Strong pro-lifers may say as soon as a sperm enters an egg. Why? Why not. Strong pro-choicers may say at birth. Why? Why not. A human being is whatever human beings say that it is.

Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?
 
  • #59
Astronuc said:
Hmmmm. Perhaps most assume that freedom of choice is implicit within life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence.

Quick definitions (liberty)
noun: freedom of choice (Example: "Liberty of opinion")
http://www.onelook.com/?w=liberty&ls=a
 
  • #60
Contrapositive said:
So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

Well, if part of your body is "property" and not "person" then you should be free to choose how to handle it instead of having others impose their will upon you.
 
  • #61
Astronuc said:
Or does one only have rights that are explicitly provided by some document or by some majority of others?

In practice I would say that this is often the case. What you think is your obvious right can very well be illegal, if not where you are today then where you may be next week. It's certainly prudent to get rights that are important to you in writing.
 
  • #62
out of whack said:
Well, if part of your body is "property" and not "person" then you should be free to choose how to handle it instead of having others impose their will upon you.

Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example. But, just a hundred years ago, you basically did have the right to do whatever you wanted with your own body. As much as I hate the idea, I think the constitution and the founding fathers would probably agree with legal abortions.
 
  • #63
Contrapositive said:
Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?
We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.
 
  • #64
Evo said:
We wouldn't have to if "pro-lifers" would stop trying to tell others that they have to agree to their beliefs. Pro-lifers=no choice, what we say is right!

Wrong.
I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?
 
  • #65
Contrapositive said:
Actually, many of the laws in place today would suggest you do not have the right to do whatever you want with your own body. Doing drugs illegally would be an example.

True, although the principle at play is to forbid goods that are unduly detrimental to society, not just to dictate how you use your own body. A better example is prostitution, another hot topic where the harm to society is being debated. In the case of abortion, detriment to society is certainly not obvious. Unwanted births are a bigger social problem.
 
  • #66
Hurkyl said:
I don't follow -- because the "pro-lifers" are arguing their case, you feel compelled to bring up an entirely irrelevant point?
"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?
 
  • #67
Contrapositive said:
Exactly. So why bring up this 'freedom of choice' stuff?

Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.

As for my opinion on the first reason: No, I don't consider abortion murder. Murder to me implies a capacity for higher conscious thought in the victim which is not only not present in the unborn but physically impossible, as in the nessecary parts don't exist yet, until well into the 7th month of pregnancy. If a human being refuses to use their capacity for higher conscious thought they are equal to lower animals in my mind, but out of respect for that capacity I would stand for them. Show me they are capable of higher conscious thought and I'll consider switching sides, but not before.

But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.
 
  • #68
Evo said:
"Pro Choice"? The right of the mother to choose? How is that irrelevant?
If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response? :tongue:


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been an argument against murder -- you have the right to choose, you just don't have the right to murder.

It's like the popular "pro-choicer" approach is not to participate in the discussion; they, like you, simply want to completely ignore what the pro-lifers are saying, and instead pretend that they are trying to strike freedom of choice from the constitution.


If you think that abortion is not murder then fine, say that. But don't pretend that isn't what the "pro-lifers" are generally arguing. Even the phrase "pro-choice" is a denial to acknowledge what the issue is. :frown:
 
Last edited:
  • #69
Hurkyl said:
If someone was arguing that your right to free speech needed to be balanced against the safety of the masses, and so you should not be allowed to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre... would you consider "Free speech. 'nuff said!" to be a relevant response? :tongue:


AFAIK, the "pro-lifers" have always been arguing that freedoms need to be balanced against the rights of others. They have never tried to argue that a woman shouldn't have freedom of choice; she just shouldn't have the freedom to murder.

Yes, I would consider that an adequite defense. I'll agree with you that it's rude and not something that should be done, but you have to expressly prove that the guy yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater did so with the express purpose of harming others before I'd even consider legal reprocussions. If he yelled "Fire!" out of a poorly planned piece of performance art for example I would not charge him with anything criminal. You'd be free to file a civil lawsuit, nothing says it doesn't go both ways, but the artist wouldn't see a prison cell if I had anything to say about it. Of course with a name like "Gleeful Nihilism" I bet that's kind of expected.

As for your second paragraph, I'm just going to sit back and laugh. "Women's bodies are considered the property of her husband in the Bible and our religion says a good wife is completely subservant to her husband at all times, but we have never said women are lesser human beings then men." Lol. Good One.
 
Last edited:
  • #70
GleefulNihilism said:
Because there exist multiple valid arguements for a pro-choice POV. 2 seen in this thread have been "When is does it count as a human being?" and "What about the rights of someone who is definitely a human being?". The main reason I am pro-choice is the second reason. For others, the main reason is the first reason.
...
But like I said the main reason I'm pro-choice is that I'm not about to butcher the rights of any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner for something that may become a human being eventually, and even then has no guarantee of a positive impact on humanity.
The question has never been about whether "any definite human being who is contributing to society and humanity in a positive manner" has rights. The question has always been whether or not "something that may become a human being eventually" has rights.

Incidentally, your statement is odd -- what if the woman wasn't contributing to society in a positive manner?
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed"?</h2><p>The purpose of "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is to provide a comprehensive and unbiased source of information on the various political positions and agendas supported by individuals and organizations in the United States. It aims to help people stay informed and make informed decisions about the political landscape in the country.</p><h2>2. How is the information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" gathered and verified?</h2><p>The information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is gathered from a variety of sources, including official statements and policies from political parties, candidates, and organizations, as well as news articles and other reputable sources. The information is carefully fact-checked and verified to ensure accuracy and objectivity.</p><h2>3. Is "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" politically biased?</h2><p>No, "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is not politically biased. The information presented is based on factual evidence and is not influenced by any political ideology or agenda. The goal is to provide an objective and neutral source of information for people to form their own opinions.</p><h2>4. How often is the information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" updated?</h2><p>The information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is regularly updated to ensure that it reflects the most current political landscape. Updates may occur as new policies or statements are released by political parties or organizations, or as new information becomes available.</p><h2>5. Can I contribute to "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed"?</h2><p>Yes, you can contribute to "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" by submitting any relevant and verifiable information through the designated channels. However, all submissions will be carefully reviewed and fact-checked before being included in the information presented.</p>

1. What is the purpose of "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed"?

The purpose of "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is to provide a comprehensive and unbiased source of information on the various political positions and agendas supported by individuals and organizations in the United States. It aims to help people stay informed and make informed decisions about the political landscape in the country.

2. How is the information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" gathered and verified?

The information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is gathered from a variety of sources, including official statements and policies from political parties, candidates, and organizations, as well as news articles and other reputable sources. The information is carefully fact-checked and verified to ensure accuracy and objectivity.

3. Is "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" politically biased?

No, "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is not politically biased. The information presented is based on factual evidence and is not influenced by any political ideology or agenda. The goal is to provide an objective and neutral source of information for people to form their own opinions.

4. How often is the information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" updated?

The information in "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" is regularly updated to ensure that it reflects the most current political landscape. Updates may occur as new policies or statements are released by political parties or organizations, or as new information becomes available.

5. Can I contribute to "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed"?

Yes, you can contribute to "Positions & Agendas Supported in US - Get Informed" by submitting any relevant and verifiable information through the designated channels. However, all submissions will be carefully reviewed and fact-checked before being included in the information presented.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
743
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
6
Views
833
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
52
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
865
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top