chad-enstad-congress

SPC(P) (Join to see) - I look forward to hearing what he has to say.

How does Chad feel about current bans on weapons and weapon modifications?

It may be best to ask for clarification on this question, although I don't believe it would make a difference. Chad's stance on the 2nd amendment is clear. Shall not infringe doesn't come with asterisks. Assuming you are speaking of things like silencers, with the amount of research out there on the hearing damage resulting from firearm use speaks clearly for the practicality of their use. Similarly, the action of bump-stocks can be recreated with a belt-loop or a rubber-band. The basic premise is that none of these issues address violence, and as we saw with the 1994 Assualt Weapons Ban, it had little-to-no effect. Mental health, psychotropic drugs, bullying, social disengagement, fatherless homes, and the overall breakdown of society are far more causal to the atrocities we've seen than weapon choices or their accessories.

As far as permitless carry, permitted conceal and carry, should be borderless.

Where does Chad stand on term limits? He is entirely for term limits.

Would Chad support election reform in the way of a ranked-choice voting system?

Absolutely, ranked-choice and run-off balloting systems are both excellent ways to improve the candidate pool, countering Duverger's Law by providing voters with more than the either-or scenario that emboldens the two-party system.

What is your candidate's position regarding the use of military force across the globe? Which conflicts, or potential conflicts, would warrant military intervention?

I think one of the best quotes out there that capture his and my attitude on this issue is from Mad Dog, "I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you f*** with me, I’ll kill you all."

War, should ALWAYS be a last resort. We need to stop the interventionism and regime-change efforts. That said, when the situation calls for war, you unleash whatever necessary because War should not be civil, it is its incivility that makes it distasteful and prevents interventionist nation-building. Furthermore, if you choose to send troops to war, you had better be prepared to cover the costs when they come home. I could go into long debates on any particular war we've been in, but I think the most relevant would be the current situation in Syria. The main concern here is that we KNOW it was Assad that launched the chemical weapons attack. If we know that, then I would say the line has been crossed and we should target key infrastructure to send a message. Personally, I think it is just as likely that the attack was launched by the rebels to keep us in Syria, but I'm not staring at the evidence.

What is your candidate's position regarding the ongoing Mueller investigation?
The investigation has gone on for long enough and spent entirely too much money. There is clear evidence of political bias in the investigation, the raid of Cohen's office and home were a blatant unethical overstep encroaching on a clear civil rights violation, and frankly, if they want to keep the investigation going under the guise of transparency and law and order, then Hillary, Obama, and The DNC should also be under investigation.

SPC(P) (Join to see) - I appreciate the responses. To clarify on the 2A question, should average citizens continue to have their 2A Rights infringed upon through the automatic weapons ban? Or should the citizens have the right to the same weaponry as the military? Is there a line where citizens SHOULD be prevented from purchasing the same weaponry as the military uses (ie, tanks, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc)?

Regarding Syria - what do you think is the appropriate action for the US to take regarding the on-going Syrian revolution? Do we stand aside while Assad and Russia put down the revolution? We know that Assad is a bad guy, right? Why would we not get involved? The argument that this is an internal issue became moot when Russia intervened.

Regarding Russia - how far do we let them encroach on territory that isn't theirs (ie Ukraine)? At what point do we have an obligation to stop Russia from re-acquiring territory by force?

Regarding the Mueller investigation: How long is too long for an investigation into the integrity of an election? And how much is too much? The State of NY seems to think the raid on Cohen's office was legitimate and legal (and can we REALLY mention ethics when we're talking about lawyers and the clients that they can't even say the names of, anyway?).

Because you brought up Clinton and investigations - do you think the Benghazi investigation was too long and costly? Similarly, do you think the Watergate investigation was too long and costly? What are the limits we should consider when we're talking about those with the greatest power?

MAJ Bryan Zeski I'm still working on getting Chad on Rally Point, so, for now, I think I will just try to answer your questions as best as I can, based on my 8 years of knowing Chad. However, I want to be forthright and mention that I myself am far more hard-line conservative than Chad is, but I believe he would agree with my take on these issues.

As far as the first question. I do think that Chad understands the need for certain already existing limitations. The automatic weapons ban and class III weapons permitting process are not unreasonable. I think the intent of the 2nd amendment is, in fact, to protect the American people from a tyrannical government and therefore its purpose is to effectively arm the American people so that should a conflict erupt, they would have the means of defense needed to overthrow their government.

That said, I don't think that many people would disagree that the existing laws preventing unregulated access to true military weapons like those classified as Class III weapons is reasonable. However, expanding that to include everyday hunting rifles, sporting rifles, and other popular weapons as an emotional knee-jerk reaction is not reasonable. That said, I do believe that, albeit cost-prohibitive, tanks are able to be legally purchased by civilians in several states.

Regarding Syria, the right answer would have been to do what was done, with the exception of having it authorized by Congress first. The United States, like it or not, is the current world hegemon, and we cannot lead the world in a position of weakness. Assad (presuming his guilt in the chemical attacks) was testing the resolve of the current President to see if he'd back down like Obama did with his red line and sending a clear message that the actions would not be tolerated was called for, and I applaud the President (Secretary Mattis) for precision targeting of facilities and doing their best to minimize collateral damage. However, I hate to see any President acting unilaterally in this sort of decision-making; it was wrong for Obama, and it was wrong for Trump.

Regarding Russia, Putin is a manipulative chess-player in world politics. To beat him, you need to play his game. That doesn't require troops on the ground, certainly not at first. The Russian economy is entirely dependent on Natural Gas. The United States has expansive amounts of untapped Natural gas, and the means to expand production and world distribution to cripple the Russian economy while boosting the American economy. There are many other such methods to check Russian aggression that don't require expensive and endless military efforts.

I'm glad you brought up the Russia investigation, because quite frankly, with this particular investigation, day one was too long. Had they been investigating Russia intervention in the election, rather than a candidate they just didn't like, that would be a whole different story. We're now talking about an investigation that was started as a means to spy on a political opponent's campaign that has evolved into a money-pit of an investigation that's produced practically nothing after over a year and a half. Frankly, I would be surprised if Russia wasn't trying to influence our elections... why wouldn't they? We interfered in the elections in France, Israel, Palestine, and countless other countries. Hillary is on tape talking about how we should have rigged the election in Palestine, the CIA was involved in countless regime change efforts... Is it really a surprise that Russia sponsored ads for our election? At what point do we talk about the fact that the Russian trolls were organizing rallies for and against virtually everyone as a means to divide Americans rather than to support one candidate over another?

As for the raid on Cohen's office, it was extreme and had better produce something demanding of it. Were it anyone else the ACLU would have been up in arms, as they should be, over those raids. What's next? Bugging the interrogation room to listen to suspects talking to their attorneys? Wiretapping the phones of every American who's under suspicion? Civil liberties should be protected at all costs, and this isn't an exception. If Cohen was guilty of something, then arrest him. At this point, even if collusion with Russia actually were a crime, no one would be able to be charged with anything because the fruit of the poisonous tree started the moment that they used a Democrat funded hit piece to get a FISA warrant to spy on the campaign... and if that argument wouldn't hold up in court, then certainly the fact that all of the evidence retrieved from this point forward would be tainted from the potential exposure of attorney-client privileged information would get the case tossed. Even Alan Dershowitz is outspoken on the fact that these actions have far surpassed the terms of a legitimate investigation.

With Benghazi, we're again talking about a whole different story. The actions during and following Benghazi were certainly demanding of a House Oversight Committee investigation; that is their job. If we were talking about a House Oversight Committee investigation into Russia Collusion we'd be having a different conversation, but we're talking about an investigation by the FBI, riddled with partisan bias, and wearing blinders to anything outside of the scope of the Trump Campaign, and investigating accusations of unethical, but not illegal, behavior. The FBI is not responsible for investigating ethics violations, and if they were, they should be taking a good hard look at the mirror.

That's my position on the subjects.

I apologize, you are absolutely correct and I will correct it. I did not intend to be speaking of Democrats as much as I was this wave of the "New Left".

He is what most in Minnesota would recognize as the old Democrat Farm Labor party. Many of his policies are conservative, but he's also a strong supporter of the Farm bill, and certain effective domestic spending programs. Far more of his policies are on our Facebook page @Chad Enstad for Congress.

CD7 is facing major issues with shortages of access to childcare, dilapidated public infrastructure like rural playgrounds and volunteer fire departments, job loss, urban migration, etc. Neither party concerns themselves with these issues.

SPC(P) (Join to see) - I went to his website (I don't do facebook). He looks like a Republican. By the way, many, if not most, Republicans support a strong farm bill. That's how they get re-elected in farm country.