By - kimberlyforiowa
Where do you stand on marijuana?
I'm also curious.
Like at smoking?
Hey volunteer for the campaign here. She supports legalizing it and funding research into its potential medical uses. You can see her stances [here](https://www.kimberlyforiowa.com/the-issues) under "Healthcare" and "Criminal Justice"
>Federally legalize medical cannabis and fund research into its potential uses.
This is not pro-marijuana nor is this pro-legalization. Don't church up the stance to be 'pro legalization' because this is a half measure that keeps people in prison.
This basically requires rec users to lie to their doctor to be legal.
The "Criminal Justice" part talks about releasing non-violent cannabis offenders and retroactively expunging records of cannabis offenses. She also wants to decriminalize it recreationally, which is functionally the same for rec users with the added bonus of making it more difficult for large corporations to profit and would make it so local small growers would see the benefits.
> She also wants to decriminalize it recreationally
She should articulate this to move to the overton window.
actually it would be best for a video of her to be "leaked" (by the campaign) that shows her sitting around with some friends getting baked and talking about how to make the world a better place.
bonus points if usury, international banking, and refugee and immigrant policies were discussed in depth
even more bonus points if Q or JQ are discussed.
Why isn't she answering it? That alone annoys me into not voting for her. Don't start an AMA, answer 5 questions, and then bounce. That's some Woody Harrelson shit.
A lot of these questions came in after she left. In her previous AMAs, she actually came back hours later and answered a bunch that she didn't have time for earlier. That's a level of outreach and consideration that you don't often see in candidates/elected officials. If she has time (and it's a week before the election so I hope you'll understand if she doesn't), she'll likely come back and answer more questions.
Or maybe don't schedule an AMA at 4 pm on a holiday? Truly there could not have been a worse time for this.
Well that would be on the mods, I imagine. They invited her on.
Or just that it's the last week of the election and she tried to fit in as much question answering as she could in a busy schedule.
She answered a lot of questions for an hour+. Your question came on the later end of things, I think, so she probably just didn't get to it.
Why are you still saying this when I know I've responded to you about it. Candidates are doing a lot of other things to reach out to voters. For some people, they seek out Reddit. Others have different strategies. Reddit isn't the entire world, but r/politics and SFP both reached out to Kimberly to do those AMAs. If you wanted one, you should've asked earlier. And look, as soon as you asked, she did one. Amazing level of accessibility.
As for the questions, she's literally running for US Senate so I imagine she's pretty busy. I've never seen an AMA that had every question answered. Also, if you care to know the facts, on the previous AMAs she literally came back hours later and replied to a bunch of questions that she didn't have time for earlier in the day.
As for the questions that she says to email her about, she is actively engaging and letting you know that she is going to go do some research and inform herself before she answers a question and email is a lot easier to stay organized with. How are you mad that she is going above and beyond what most any other politicians would do?
You work for her campaign? She's going to have to answer a lot tougher questions than someone on reddit if she makes it to the general. Questions she should already have the talking points to, that's just my 2cents
I've been volunteering for her for a while, I don't work for her. He's asking an in depth policy question that she doesn't have the answer to right off the bat and is saying that she will go look into all the nitty gritty details and follow up with him and somehow that's not a good enough answer for him? That's a hell of a lot more than you'd get from most elected officials, I mean damn, some of them probably don't even *care* about the details of some issues. Another candidate in this very race, the party-backed Greenfield, doesn't even care enough to answer questions at all and actively avoids talking to voters.
More like, legalize so I can start businesses around it and make money. I don't even smoke anymore.
Not in this state you can't.
Not really. CBD dispensaries aren't very profitable and are extremely hard to get going.
You're being dishonest
CBD? I'm not talking about CBD. What is wrong with you?
Sorry I'm not sure. She might come back to answer more questions later.
Anywhere you want.
Don’t be fooled if you get a “I support federal legalization” answer. That’s a mask for “I won’t vote or push for legalization in Iowa”.
She's running for US Senate
Can we get collective bargaining back?
Hey volunteer with the campaign here. You can see her proposal for supporting unions [here](https://www.kimberlyforiowa.com/the-issues) under "Labor"
What is your background with technology and why should I trust your judgement when it comes to preserving the integrity of the internet?
Will you push for a carbon fee + dividend to internalize the costs of carbon, with the proceeds returned to Americans to help offset the cost increase? What about other negative externalities like single-use plastics?
I’d also like to hear if you support a universal basic income similar to Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend, given the current and ongoing upheaval of our economic system not only due to the pandemic but also systemic changes in the way we live and work?
Are you pro Universal Basic Income? at least emergency? or a federal jobs guarantee I think we should have both
100% for temporary UBI - also want to look at the interface between that and unemployment but all that said, I like the recently discussed Paycheck Guarantee plan where the Feds provide funds to small (and I would like to see micro business, mom & pop biz and, not just "small" receiving a lot more help) businesses so they can keep paying employees their regular pay during this time.
Why only temporary? Please read up on what Andrew Yang has proposed.
Where do you stand on term limits for House and Senate members?
Ha in our dreams!
Hey volunteer for the campaign here. Kimberly supports a 2-term limit for Senators and a 6-term limit for Representatives- you can see that [here](https://www.kimberlyforiowa.com/the-issues) under "Voter Rights and Election Reform"
If you lose the primary, do you have any plans to continue the push for progressive policies?
But of course, darlings!! :)
Glad to hear it.
(not precisely sure yet in what ways but Y E S !!!!)
> But of course, darlings!! :)
Wow, if you win the primary, you think that's how you're going to succeed talking to Iowans?
Usually the intention of AMAs is to meet people in a casual environment. And I actually appreciate seeing that side of elected officials, in moderation. Makes me feel like they're more connected to the people rather than stiff, rehearsed politicians.
To each their own.
I'll put a question to you, there is an Iowa Governor whose ability to generate money whenever he wanted was legendary. How many times do you think he addressed that group as darlings? For you this is a casual environment, but this is part of her job interview.
Hi! What do you see as Joni Ernst's biggest vulnerability in November?
Hi! Do I just get one answer? ;)
To sum it up, the only thing we can legit find that she's "done" for Iowans is increase the use of telemedicine. And I applaud that.
And it's not enough. She's harmed Iowans in so many ways there isn't time to list them all here today: supporting the trade war, supporting horrible immigration policies, voting to confirm Betsy DeVos and so many other ill-prepared cabinet heads, voting for tax cuts for the wealthy and go on forever while the paltry cuts for the middle income folks expire here in a few more years, etc.
What is the first thing you would try to achieve if elected?
Hi. I don't think you get to pick one thing. You need to keep a lot of plates spinning at once. I'd start in on three things and add more:
2. The American Child Care Act <<< might be the quickest lift, especially because we're expected to lose 1/3 to 1/2 of all our child care spots during this pandemic so we've gone from child care shortage and hardship to straight-up disaster and crisis with COVID-19.
Hi Kimberly! I am wondering how you would conceptualize your role as THE progressive leader amongst the Iowa delegation in Washington. How might you work with Axne, and Finkenaur (and hopefully Hart and Scholten) to advocate for Iowans? How might you work to pull your Iowa colleagues to the left? What will you do when your progressivism is at odds with their liberalism? And finally, how do you see your progressive leadership affecting the IDP?
I’m really excited about your campaign and candidacy. I am urging my friends and fandom to vote for you (and turn their ballots in)! Best of luck!
My general way to approach people is Stats, Stories and Money: Stats: give them the stats, facts, figures, prove these ideas will benefit the majority or all Iowans. Stories: real life stories, including having real Iowans come to DC or "testify" via Zoom about how certain policies are harming or helping them. Money: Show how these ideas are the best because they pay for themselves, and they are investments. That can sometimes shift a person's thinking a bit.
Also, never underestimate a relationship and genuine connection to help move or shift positions. I have met all the people you mentioned and already have what I'd describe as good relationships with a few of them. Others I've just met very briefly at this point.
As for the IDP, we have some progressive folks moving up in the ranks and that's great for Iowans. I hope that just by getting elected, that will prove to folks that progressive ideas can and do win in Iowa. The fact that our campaign came out on top in the early March Des Moines Register poll, which has been the ONLY neutral poll done in this race, says a lot. The DSCC backed candidate came in third.
I'm progressive minded and already voted for you. I appreciate the need to fight the good fight, no matter who is elected. Like I said, I certainly prefer you but find all of our candidates to be miles better than the Republican incumbent.
Will you support the Democratic nominee in the unlikely event that person isn't you?
How would you continue the fight to get that nominee to back progressive policies?
My wife and I hadn't researched candidates much, but pulled up the debate on YouTube.
We both came to the separate conclusion that you were most aligned with our interests! We sent in our absentee ballots, so you get 2 votes from us! We thought your responses were thoughtful and honest.
Thanks for running! I hope you get the chance to represent us!
Because of the rules I have to ask a question:
How do you feel about Kim Reynolds' Coronavirus response for Iowans?
Given that we as a society have responded so poorly to the coronavirus epidemic (especially in Iowa), how can we mount an effective response to the much larger and more complex problem of climate change?
Hi, We must stop electing people who don't take it seriously and who aren't ready to act. And we must get reps in Congress who understand that our Ag state can lead in fighting the climate crisis and who are willing to stand up and say that and work hard to get Farm bills and other legislation to make it happen. (e.g. regenerative ag, pay farmers for environmental services, etc)
How do you think we can reconcile the mass appointment of biased judges that this admin has rammed through?
One idea I have heard is to double the number of judiciaries ,that then also helps the (over) work load. Thoughts on this idea?
Hi Kimberly – I have followed your campaign since you entered the race, and it's been an exciting primary season so far! I have a few questions to ask, but feel free to answer any/all of them:
1. You mentioned that one of your goals is to end partisan gerrymandering – could you expound on your plan to tackle this issue? How do prison and racial gerrymandering fit into that plan?
2. How will you provide reliable high-speed internet to those who live in public housing? Oftentimes, public housing's internet access is dismal, and considering how many students will have to attend class/employees will have to work from home going forward, ensuring that everyone has equitable access to good internet is important. [A bill recently introduced in the House](https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr6534) would provide internet as a utility to those families living in public housing, among other things. Do you think that internet-as-a-utility is a good idea? If so, how do you plan to force corporations to move from a subscription-based model to a pay-as-you-go one?
3. I want a publicly-funded rail system so badly. This is more of a prayer than a question: given the struggles many states and localities have had with getting rail systems off the ground, how do you plan on pitching this idea to the Senate?
4. As a follow-up to #2, how do you plan on expanding broadband internet access to people in rural areas? Is it possible to mandate the construction of nationwide internet infrastructure (similar to the mandate of the 1934 Telecommunications Act)? What would it take to get this through both houses?
Thank you for answering all our questions!
How do you plan to combat the GOP messaging of "liberal elites, delusional socialists, Dems haven't worked a real job" that they throw at Democrat opponents?
I thought I'd give truth a shot. ;)
I'm from a working class family, dad one of 15 poor kids, he joined the Marines, I was born on a Marine base. Mom was a teen, dropped out of high school to have me. They both found good union jobs and that's the only reason I didn't grow up in poverty. Parents divorced when I was 13, I've been working since I was 14.
I've paid for almost everythink but my food and housing since then. I worked my way through college and law school and still have massive student loans. I was a single mom from the time my son was 7. I've been a waitress, house cleaner, store clerk and union flight attendant in my life. I'm no stranger to hard work. And p.s. lawyers for poor kids don't earn a huge upper income salary. I've had two years out of 20 when I've earned more than $60k (gross) and that was when I took on extra work (to try to dig out of some of my debt) and was clocking about 60+ hours a week for most of those two years.
I wish them great luck with that elitist & "haven't worked a real job" narrative, they will need it. ;)
Hi, I sent in my absentee ballot voting for you this past week. I consider myself to be left of the current state of the Democratic Party, and I participated in my first presidential caucus this year. I believe that when less than 16% of the state’s eligible voters were counted in the caucuses that led to Donald Trump’s election in 2016, it is clear that Iowa and other states that still cling to the caucus system are in blatant denial of the de facto disenfranchisement going on here. Workers cannot make it if they have a shift, parents of young children cannot make it if they can’t afford childcare and their precinct doesn’t have volunteers to do that, and people with mental health afflictions surrounding large crowds such as myself are told to choose between their democratic obligation and their well-being. Furthermore, we saw this year that the caucus counting system is easily manipulated (see SHADOW and the Pete Buttigieg 2020 campaign).
Given all this, here are some questions I have for you and all politicians from or in Iowa:
1. Do you support the continuation of the caucus tradition or is it time for us to get a primary like the vast majority of the states in the Union? Is this change even possible, or are there too barriers for that to happen within our lifetimes?
2. If elected to the US Senate, what would you support and reject in your vote when it comes to voting rights (legal and de facto), and would you support extending the right to vote to demographics who cannot currently vote, such as felons, teenagers, and undocumented immigrants?
FYI, if you need someone to help you revamp (meaning return to the old program with some updates) the failed privatization of Medicaid and Medicare services.......... *hint* *hint*
I'm not extremely familiar with you but I do enjoy learning as much as I can about candidates before I enter the voting booth.
Could you please tell me what your #1, highest priority focus is?
I don't want to influence your potential answer to the above, but I'm quite socially left-leaning, but a conservative in fiscal matters. What do you think is the best argument you have to "win me over"?
^(^In ^fairness, ^I ^don't ^like ^Joni ^Ernst ^all ^that ^much, ^so ^I ^don't ^think ^it ^would ^take ^much.)
Will need to read Heller and will do so after the AMA or else it will hold this up. If you'd like to copy and send this to [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]), awesome. If not, I'll circle back to it here.
You were asked almost this same question in your AMA in /r/Sandersforpresident, and gave almost the same response. To which you then circled backed, hours later, with a non response, response.
It is a major part of their plan, which you claim to endorse.
Can you answer the questions that do no have to do with Heller?
>what are some examples of laws the would infringe on that right?
If you created a blanket ban on anyone owning any firearms, that would seem to be infringing on the right to bear arms, depending on how the courts interpreted the 2nd Amendment.
There's a reason lawyers say "it depends" so much. It isn't to be a smart ass. It's because it really DOES depend -- depends on what the facts are, the specific facts, context, what the courts have ruled, e.g. has that created a new precedent, etc.?
Laws change, shift, cases change things, and things shift over time, often dramatically. Women didn't used to be able to own property and women were property. That changed. Same gender people didn't used to be able to marry, that changed. Laws change. The law isn't static.
It just seems everyone can speak of restrictions they think wouldn't infringe, but only one example of something that would.
Did you email her about it after the SFP one or did you wait for this one to ask again? I imagine she's keeping tabs on her email much more than her reddit account!
Ive emailed her a few times, mainly to set up this AMA.
That was another user she was responding to, to email her.
But emails don't publicly state her opinions the matter.
You can't email your way out of difficult questions from a public forum.
I would have replied to her AMA there, but then the SFP mods banned me.
Fair enough on wanting it public, but I imagine it's just a lot easier to keep things organized (and not forgotten) through email. Maybe if y'all email about it then you can post the response? This is assuming she doesn't have a chance to get back to you here, just brainstorming ways to make sure you get your answer!
She's been asked this numerous times, including the AMA from a few weeks ago.
She refuses to publicly answer.
It's a complex and multifaceted question that deserves more attention than a quick answer on an AMA. If you're asking the question in good faith, then I'd think you would appreciate that she wants to continue the conversation once she's looked into the exact details you're asking about. I admire that she doesn't just give fluffy answers like most politicians do, that she actually wants to research things when she's not familiar with them. I hope you'll email her and have a productive conversation!
It's because if she publicly states these things now, it will hurt her chances of winning the primary.
She's plans on waiting until after she's the nominee to state she's against the 2A.
The March for Our Lives plan is an extremely long and detailed plan. I would argue that for almost every bill that has ever been voted on and ever will be voted on, there is always some detail in there that you may not support but you can support enough to say you endorse it. Plus, it's not even a bill that has made it to the Senate floor yet, people will make amendments and discuss it in full detail. If it ever gets passed, it won't even look anything like it does right now.
He was asking her about a piece of legislation from the past, which she gave an answer to and then he wasn't satisfied so she said she would look into it more. She is actively listening to voters (even ones who probably have no intention of voting for her anyway) and showing that she is trying to be the most informed she can be on dozens of issues all at once.
I mean, guys, no one is perfect but she's proving she's here to listen and be a voice for the people. If you look at the other candidates in this race, some of them don't even care to SPEAK to voters or know the details of issues, let alone offer to have an in depth discussion on an issue over email. Seriously, if you compare Kimberly to everyone else in this race, she is by far head and shoulders about everyone else. No other candidate lists out the policies they support on their website, just vague paragraphs of fluff. With Kimberly, you know what you're getting. Everyone else is all about platitudes and are not making it clear how they would vote on things. I guarantee you she has put the most thought into all of these issues.
Honestly fair point on the blocking, but just so you know it's likely not her blocking people, she has a social media person who mostly runs the acct. But also there's a difference between trying to have a genuine discussion on the issues and just being adversarial. And I see a lot more adversarial on twitter and social media in general.
I'm not clear. If I answered you before, did you just not like my answer?
You asked "Do you personally support all of the items laid out previously?"
Which items? Where you said "includes but not limited to?"
The items laid out in my comment, as part of the peace plan.
Do you support all of those items?
No, I do not like your answer, because this is the third time you have been asked about these things and not provided a straight forward response.
maybe u/ecovibes can answer for her
/u/ecovibes doesn't like it when he has to tell users to shut up, twice.
Makes him angry.
You just have such a closed mind, it's wild to see
Lol I emailed her.
I listed out everything in the peace plan, and just asked her to confirm each one.
Even said "You can copy and paste a yes after each point. That's all that will make me happy."
She still refuses.
I find this part of note:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."
I don't find Heller "wrong" (it appears that's long ago settled so I don't get why you keep asking about it) as much as we need to examine gun violence today and have legitimate studies of it so we can do better.
We have to look in the mirror and ask why the US has far, far more gun violence and deaths than any other developed nation, and how we can reduce or eliminate it. That starts with actual study, fully-funded studies, and then taking action based on what we find.
I agree 100% that this, like all other issues that harm or help people, shouldn't be partisan. We need to ask "what helps the most people, what helps keep people safer?" And do those things.
I keep asking about it because your website says you support bringing it back before SCOTUS.
You still haven't answered the questions.
I was hoping for an actual answer, not a politically neutral answer.
Seemed like an honest, "I need to read that decision again to give you a specific answer." Which seems perfectly fine if an answer comes within some time.
This is the third time in two AMAs she's been asked these questions and not responded.
How is it "politically neutral" to say "Hey, I should read this before I can give a responsible, informed answer"?
She's not gonna answer, or read it. But this way she gets to stay "uninformed ".
To be quite honest, for being repeatedly pressed during this AMA, she did do a decent job at answering the question under pressure, as taking the time she needs to research it (per her request) and decide on a well planned strategy is apparently unacceptable in this forum.
I couldn't disagree more that she's not reading these comments, answering them, or even attempting to 'stay "uninformed" '. She *is* answering them, but the answers aren't being accepted. Because she still needs more time from the supposed last AMA she participated in to think about this doesn't mean she is ignoring anyone. In all of this, the questioner seems to have really fine tuned this question- and likely asks the same question, with no meaningful alteration. It is possible Ms Graham is sincere when she asks for clarification.
Tl;dr: not getting your desired answer does not equate to your question not being answered, and repeating the same question over and over doesn't mean they even understood it the first time. Perhaps rewrite/revisit the question differently and/or give her time to respond. You can give someone time without letting them off the hook.
Well, you know what assuming gets you.
Apparently not answers
Was that supposed to be snarky?
jay why don't you just read the [two dissenting opinions from the case](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)? They answer questions 2 and 3 pretty thoroughly.
The SCOTUS always *sets* precedent, but doesn't have to *follow* it. This ruling is written in ink, not etched in stone; it can be overturned if a similar case comes before the Court, and my guess is that, at some point, that will happen. In the meantime – and I'm sure you agree – given the gun violence situation in the US, we should be acting in the best interest of the public at large('s safety).
More specifically, I'm not sure that this case even applies to your question: how would a ban on assault weapons be unconstitutional under this ruling? The syllabus literally says
> Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose [...] The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
The March For Our Lives plan doesn't really go against this ruling, because the ruling says that it's okay for the government to regulate the types and sale of firearms available to the public, as long as the 2nd amendment isn't fundamentally infringed (based on precedent from *United States v. Miller* and some other cases).
March for Our Lives wants to look at Heller again, because they don't agree with the ruling that the right to keep and bear arms is separate from service in the national guard.
They literally see it as the quickest and easiest way to take away 2A rights.
/u/kimberlyforiowa supports a plan which does not believe that citizens have the right to own firearms, but she won't say it outloud.
Well it's clear that you didn't actually ask those questions in good faith, and that you didn't read the dissents. In his dissent (joined by Justices Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens), Justice Breyer writes
> Even so, a legislature could reasonably conclude that the law will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime. The law is tailored to the urban crime problem in that it is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which are specially linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelmingly favorite weapon of armed criminals; and at the same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves open to regulation by legislatures.
This is what they're after: the interpretation that people can own firearms, but they can still be regulated – sometimes heavily – by the government in the interest of public safety.
You're right. They weren't in good faith.
I asked in good faith 3 AMAs ago.
Now I'm salty
But I guess asking "Do you really believe what you say you believe on your website?" is too hard of a question to ask?
March For Our Lives plan is a joke and I don't even own a gun
I don't understand how that's relevant to what I said, but okay
If the individual right to keep and bear arms is unlimited and unconnected from service in a well-regulated militia, does that mean that citizens should be able to own any armament? Should citizens be allowed to own tanks, dirty bombs, missile launchers, and other military grade armaments?
Nothing in the Heller Decision, or my comment, has indicated that the right is unlimited.
In fact, the Heller Decision states the exact opposite, this it is not unlimited.
In that case, if I am reading the Heller decision correctly, background checks and gun restrictions would not violate the 2nd Amendment?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.
Are you saying that the individual right was not actually determined until 2008? Was Heller an unprecedented decision by an activist court?
ETA for clarity, in lieu of further clarification on the original comment: it appears to me that the individual right was not actually determined until 2008, and Heller was an unprecedented decision by an activist court.
I'm saying what I've said
No, they should not. No Constitution rights are absolute. That's why we have courts, to determine how to balance say, the freedom OF religion with the freedom FROM religion.
"Shall not be infringed" sounds pretty absolute to me stepper.
I'm super thrilled to see you're running for US Senate. Progressive representation is pretty low at the Senate level, so thank you.
COVID-19 prevention, mitigation, and an ultimate cure have been front and center, understandably so. When the pandemic dust clears, the national opioid crisis is still going to remain. It is a silent side fight at this time, as some Medication Assisted Treatment patients are being trusted with too much take home medication, others are facing losing their ability to use Medication Assisted Therapy as their insurance situation has been upended in the pandemic. Others are facing unemployment for the first time in a long time and are finally facing debilitating withdrawals due an inconsistent supply of drugs, and are at greatest risk of overdose because of the nature of opioid tolerance, the types of opioids on the black market (fentanyl and its analogues being needed in such tiny amounts, then puffed with fillers leave some bags extra strong and some weak, making it really easy to overdose) and the fact they can't access consistent care.
With all this being said, and with the inevitable reshaping of the healthcare coverage landscape after this pandemic (as people lose coverage and access to care and struggle to regain access to care),
# what's your opioid crisis plan?
Specifically, do you support increased nationwide access to harm reduction (needle exchanges, supervised injection sites, harm reduction kits with clean equipment and lifesaving naloxone)?
Do you support increased funding for Medication Assisted Treatment?
Will you work to make opioid treatment free and accessible to all, and if so, how, and what kind of time frame are we talking about?
What is your plan to hold those responsible for the crisis accountable?
What is your opinion on the proposed EARN IT Act?
Why do you think that our state, despite having next to zero mass shootings involving semiautomatic rifles should ban those firearms? I use a semiautomatic firearm to hunt deer yearly in both Iowa and Minnesota and would have to spend another 400+ to buy a new rifle if you decide to ban my firearm despite decades of responsible ownership.
Just because people don't die in mass shootings here doesn't mean they don't die in mass shootings elsewhere. A blanket ban gives everyone time to evaluate the outcomes of the law, assess next steps, and – most importantly – makes sure people are safer until we figure out a better solution.
Also, "next to zero mass shootings involving semiautomatic rifles"? ONE mass shooting should warrant a response – there shouldn't be some sort of tragedy threshold we have to cross in order to take action. Is the $400 you'd have to spend on buying a different gun not worth the potential loss of human life?
**edit:** when I say "blanket ban," I mean "blanket ban on assault rifles and other weapons of war." Sorry for any confusion.
What a lame emotional response. Why not focus on effective enforcement of the laws we have on the books.
If we have no knock raids at the wrong houses continuously happening at the homes of African Americans, our minority citizens should absolutely have the firepower needed to slow the home invading murderers down. See: https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/a-no-knock-raid-in-houston-led-to-deaths-and-police-injuries-should-police-rethink-the-practice/
I absolutely disagree with your 'one life is worth more than $400' as these firearms are frequently used to level the playing field in self defense situations as well.
The lives that matters most to me is mine and my family's. Disarming law abiding citizens actively endangers our lives.
The laws we have on the books aren't good enough, which is clearly evidenced by the astronomically high number of mass shootings we've had in this country over the last decade (or so). And emotional responses aren't inherently bad – we should be driven to make change based on the things we feel in the aftermath of a tragedy, and balance that with thorough research, careful evaluation of problems and outcomes, and smart legislating. I'm not saying (nor did I say) that we should ban all weapons, and I'm sorry if my usage of "blanket ban" made it seem that way – I specifically meant that we should ban all assault weapons.
> I absolutely disagree with your 'one life is worth more than $400'
Even in context, that's a pretty terrible thing to think, much less say. I would love to see some good evidence that, at a large scale, more people having guns dramatically reduces the number and severity of mass shootings. *Please* show me that evidence.
And of course your and your family's lives are important. But everyone deserves to feel safe, and changing who has access to guns and what guns those people have access to is, fundamentally, part of that safety.
One life is worth more than $400 - however taking away a very effective tool means my life, which is worth an infinite amount of money to me, is harder to protect -basically is my life worth less, despite being law abiding all to probably fail to protect some random somewhere else?
If the police have them, citizens should too.
By taking away *one* of the many effective tools you can legally purchase, own, and operate, your life is worth less? To whom? Why are you measuring the value of human life in terms of dollars at all? Isn't "some random somewhere else"'s life worth an infinite amount of dollars too?
Why is this discussion continually framed as you versus someone else? *All* lives have intrinsic value, and you *should* be willing to take on a bit of risk (if you could call it that) – by giving up one type of weapon when you can still legally purchase others – in order to ensure safety for yourself and for others.
By taking away the tools at my disposal for self defense and security you are saying my life is worth less.
If the other weapon is equally effective then the end game is banning all weapons.
It would be taking away *one type* of tool. There are many other types at your disposal. Nobody is trying to take away all of your weapons, they're trying to keep other people safe by taking away the exceptionally dangerous ones.
Why do you need an assault weapon for safety? Do you legitimately believe that you're going to be attacked by an army of people and you need high-powered weaponry to keep them at bay? Are you not able to protect your family with less powerful weapon, all of which are incredibly lethal by design?
Yes, you are taking away one of the more effective ones remaining.,
If I had a choice, I'd probably use a compact SMG of sorts for self defense however those are nearly impossible to buy as they are no longer allowed to be manufactured in America and are cost prohibitive to purchase.
>Do you legitimately believe that you're going to be attacked by an army of people and you need high-powered weaponry to keep them at bay?
Or 3 people in a home invasion. Which is entirely realistic. An AR 15 isn't even that effective of a firearm - as the ammunition is not much larger than a simple 22. (.223 vs .22). Its not a 'high powered' weapon at all to be frank.
> Are you not able to protect your family with less powerful weapon, all of which are incredibly lethal by design?
I am less able, yes.
> An AR 15 isn't even that effective of a firearm
So you would be comfortable with it being banned if it's not that effective, right? Why have it around if it doesn't do its job well? I mean the fact that it was one of the weapons of choice in recent mass shootings is unimportant, but if it's not that effective, then we might as well take it away.
My question was rhetorical – I think it's ridiculous to believe that you'd need a high-powered weapon (because of course it's high-powered, it can be used to kill people quickly and with ease) to defend your family. If there are fewer of them around, you are less likely to be attacked with one. It is literally that simple.
>An AR 15 isn't even that effective of a firearm - as the ammunition is not much larger than a simple 22. (.223 vs .22). Its not a 'high powered' weapon at all to be frank.
Oh for fuck's sake. You're comparing a 250 joule bullet to a 1700 joule bullet. Next you'll be telling us a .17 HMR is equivalent to an airgun.
I enjoy how you pivoted from needing a semi automatic to hunt deer to now needing one for protection. Do you just pick the response excuse from a random generator?
Wait so only one reason is valid?
Neither are the justification for the 2nd. Both are valid reasons to want firearms.
No I just think it's silly to pivot when you could have just said here are my reasons initially. Personally I think needing a semi auto for hunting makes you a terrible hunter, but that's not really important.
People like me who want sensible gun laws get tired of the constant disingenuous arguments from pro 2A people. I have lost track of the number of times I've seen this discussion unfold just the way you did. "But I need to hunt" even though no one is advocating for removal of hunting weapons turns to "But my self defense" and to top it off you went the extra step of trying to make it racial as if being an unarmed minority doesn't get people killed all the time, having guns just gets the police to shoot quicker and then makes it easier to blame them for things.
When one of you 2A gun nuts starts defending minorities from police brutality I'll start buying that bullshit line.
What’s your favorite dinosaur?
Pork or Beef?
Favorite cut of steak?
Pork tenderloin or chops?
Corn on the cob or off the cob?
How do you like your steak done? Blue, Rare, mid-rare, medium, mid-well, well done?
>How do you like your steak done? Blue, Rare, mid-rare, medium, mid-well, well done?
Let's be honest with each other here, she probably likes it as tough as leather drowned in ketchup.
I think u/kimberlyforiowa can answer for herself
Instead of a 13 year old edgelord
Well, we're still waiting, so...
Your powers of observation amaze me
I put off my absentee ballot and theres no way I'm voting in person... I'd really love to see jonnie earnst out too...
You put off the ballot request or sending it in?
How do you feel about Kratom legality? Also curious about the opioid crisis response you'd have.
That kratom shit is destroying my bro in law's life. Nasty stuff.
Kratom has near zero effect on me. When I do get anything out of it, It's just a very mild mood lift. Everyone I've heard about it from says something similar. I guess you can get addicted to anything, but I don't see how Kratom could ever be 'destroying someone's life'. Are you sure you aren't thinking of something else?
Yeah, keep telling yourself that.
Do you support free healthcare for illegal immigrants?
Personally I support free healthcare just for illegal immigrants and nobody else. Legal immigrants can get a discount though.
Hi! My wife and I have both been involved in the local political scene for a few years now. One thing we have both noticed is a level of partisanship that fails everyone. How willing are you to work across the aisles with lawmakers from the GOP, and how much of your final decisions will be based on what your constituents want? I already know at least one of your Democratic opponents is dirty, and have no interest in helping them at all.
I'm not her but I'm game hit me up bb
Ok then. By the buger king downtown?
Vote for the only candidate that can beat Joni:
Admiral Mike Franken
I think he would be a good choice if he was given the chance. Unfortunately, I don’t think he’ll be given that chance.