I am sharing with readers all the responses submitted which were not one of the muliple choices provided. Five detailed responses in all.
I most certainly invite my readers to agree, disagree, or add and subtract to any of the answers I gave.
Additionally, you may find it useful to your own understanding of various issues to ponder these or other questions asked at the site; that is whether or not you submit your answers.
Think of it as a personal interview. Be careful not to be "push-polled" into giving an answer. An example of that is my answer to the question about Iran. At this point I do not know what should be done. Our national policy towards them was destroyed by Jimmy Carter. Every opening where we might have improved our relations were, in my opinion, bungled opportunities at best. All the worse ways of looking at how those opportunities were handled involve hidden agendas which invite open ended speculations which do little to solve the threats of Iran to the world today.
Do you support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)?
So many times tort reform has been discussed as the ultimate answer, but it falls flat each time. It may be due to Congress being so full of attorneys and influenced by the lawyer lobby. Also the media so in line with them that this discussion is never given a fair airing or a chance. Medical costs have risen directly proportional to out of control court awards (legal liability passed along to every patient as a natural part of the cost of doing business). Tort reform (in conjunction with a more punitive AMA for bad doctors) is the single biggest solution to the escalating health costs.
The nation would be better served with understanding the legal costs being a major portion of this problem if its media were not so filled with stupid or corrupt people.
Should the United States end its trade embargo and travel ban on Cuba?
If we keep it, those caught violating ought to be prosecuted. Not prosecuting undermines respect for the law. It's so bad, it is probably too late for that. As it stands, open contempt for law and selective (political) enforcement has become commonplace, which is unfitting for a republic of laws and more fitting of fascist tyrannies.
How should the U.S. deal with Iran?
I don't know now. Easier solutions were available in past opportunities. Much of the current problem stems from our political system not wishing to admit they failed to take advantage of those earlier and easier solutions.
Should the U.S. maintain a presence at the United Nations?
Should the U.S. continue NSA surveillance of its allies?
Wherever did the notion that we don't keep an eye on everybody become a common understanding? When Ronald Reagan said "trust but verify" that seemed to be a general statement of one of the purposes of any nation's overall foreign policy. When did it become considered to be the symptoms of some form of national paranoia to engage in surveillance? This has been around since the beginning of time, only in less technological forms.