Jump to content
TedderVision
SWMissourian

John Grant For Senate | Senate Campaign Townhall

Recommended Posts

Representative Johnathon Grant of Southwest Missouri joins us tonight to take questions from the audience in regards to his bid for Senator from the Midwest. 

"Hi, guys! Thanks for coming out today! Let's get some questions answered! Just line up and the gentleman right there will hand you the mic. You can have one question and one followup, but then we'll need to move on so as many people as possible can get the answers they need."

Ask away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Congressman,

What sets you apart from Anthony Granata? Why are you the better choice to represent me and other Midwesterners in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. Granata, while an experienced politician, has largely mismanaged his time in the regional legislature, thus his replacement. I'm more principled, I stick to my guns. I'm for small government, originalism, conservatism, and common-sense policy. I hate to antagonize Mr. Granata, but I would also say that I'm more reasonable than he is, something important in a Senator. I'm also more in line with the public, including conservatives, libertarians, and moderates. Just look at marijuana legalization. A good majority of Americans support legalizing it, according to the Pew Research Center. 62 percent of Americans support it's legalization, including almost 75 percent of Millenials, 63 percent of Generation X, and even 54 percent of Baby Boomers! And not only are these views more aligned with public wants and needs, they reflect my more principled nature as well. I value personal and economic liberty, so even though I personally don't like marijuana (or really any drugs), I support allowing others to decide for themselves, either on a local government level or on a personal level. I know that many conservatives and Republicans don't subscribe to that train of thought, by I think it is more principled and reflective of small government, liberating policy. That was a good question!

37 minutes ago, Jellybeans said:

Rufus hook a farmer

 

Mr. Grant, how do you differ from Anthony Granata and Democrats on tariff policy?

Tariffs are a bad idea. As someone who has studied economics in the past as part of my business studies and projects, I can attest to that, along with many other economists. Tariffs are a tax on the American people and a representation of government interference in the market, something I generally oppose. Prices are the most efficient and easy way to dictate the where the scarce resources of an economy go. Tariffs mess with this system, with generally bad consequences. However, tariffs with the goal of eventually lowering trade barriers aren't necessarily bad, nor are they necessarily bad when it comes to actual national security. The problem here is that Congress gave the President the power to levy tariffs for supposed national security concerns. Tariffs are a legislative power and shouldn't be delegated to the executive our of Congressional laziness. Tariff power should be taken back by Congress, plain and simple. I also generally stand against those tariffs, but like I said, my first priority would be to have the power returned to Congress, then we can discuss, debate, and hopefully dismantle or significantly alter these harmful tariffs. Thanks for the question, Mr. Hook!

OOC: Here is my source :)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

image.thumb.png.b85b6f9896cdbbdc49757076e2a0d69e.png

Edited by SWMissourian
added sources and picture of graph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWMissourian said:

Mr. Granata, while an experienced politician, has largely mismanaged his time in the regional legislature, thus his replacement. I'm more principled, I stick to my guns. I'm for small government, originalism, conservatism, and common-sense policy. I hate to antagonize Mr. Granata, but I would also say that I'm more reasonable than he is, something important in a Senator. I'm also more in line with the public, including conservatives, libertarians, and moderates. Just look at marijuana legalization. A good majority of Americans support legalizing it, according to the Pew Research Center. 62 percent of Americans support it's legalization, including almost 75 percent of Millenials, 63 percent of Generation X, and even 54 percent of Baby Boomers! And not only are these views more aligned with public wants and needs, they reflect my more principled nature as well. I value personal and economic liberty, so even though I personally don't like marijuana (or really any drugs), I support allowing others to decide for themselves, either on a local government level or on a personal level. I know that many conservatives and Republicans don't subscribe to that train of thought, by I think it is more principled and reflective of small government, liberating policy. That was a good question!

Tariffs are a bad idea. As someone who has studied economics in the past as part of my business studies and projects, I can attest to that, along with many other economists. Tariffs are a tax on the American people and a representation of government interference in the market, something I generally oppose. Prices are the most efficient and easy way to dictate the where the scarce resources of an economy go. Tariffs mess with this system, with generally bad consequences. However, tariffs with the goal of eventually lowering trade barriers aren't necessarily bad, nor are they necessarily bad when it comes to actual national security. The problem here is that Congress gave the President the power to levy tariffs for supposed national security concerns. Tariffs are a legislative power and shouldn't be delegated to the executive our of Congressional laziness. Tariff power should be taken back by Congress, plain and simple. I also generally stand against those tariffs, but like I said, my first priority would be to have the power returned to Congress, then we can discuss, debate, and hopefully dismantle or significantly alter these harmful tariffs. Thanks for the question, Mr. Hook!

OOC: Here is my source :)

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/08/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

image.thumb.png.b85b6f9896cdbbdc49757076e2a0d69e.png

4

follow up.

How would you stand up or would you stand up to a President Vang or President Trump on Tariffs then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWMissourian said:

Mr. Granata, while an experienced politician, has largely mismanaged his time in the regional legislature, thus his replacement. I'm more principled, I stick to my guns. I'm for small government, originalism, conservatism, and common-sense policy. I hate to antagonize Mr. Granata, but I would also say that I'm more reasonable than he is, something important in a Senator. I'm also more in line with the public, including conservatives, libertarians, and moderates. Just look at marijuana legalization. A good majority of Americans support legalizing it, according to the Pew Research Center. 62 percent of Americans support it's legalization, including almost 75 percent of Millenials, 63 percent of Generation X, and even 54 percent of Baby Boomers! And not only are these views more aligned with public wants and needs, they reflect my more principled nature as well. I value personal and economic liberty, so even though I personally don't like marijuana (or really any drugs), I support allowing others to decide for themselves, either on a local government level or on a personal level. I know that many conservatives and Republicans don't subscribe to that train of thought, by I think it is more principled and reflective of small government, liberating policy. That was a good question!

Congressman Grant, a followup if I may. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about Majority Leader Joe Granata. My question was in reference to his father, Congressman Anthony Granata. With all due respect, you are aware that you will facing Anthony Granata in the primary, and not Joe Granata, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sovereign said:

Congressman Grant, a followup if I may. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're talking about Majority Leader Joe Granata. My question was in reference to his father, Congressman Anthony Granata. With all due respect, you are aware that you will facing Anthony Granata in the primary, and not Joe Granata, right?

Of course! My bad, I blanked there for a second. It’s been a long day, so please forgive me! I must say that the things I said largely remain true, though, except my comment on the regional legislature. I still maintain that I’m more principled and aligned with the wishes of the people than Congressman Granata. My main points were in reference to Anthony, except for the beginning about Joe. That’s my bad, had a brain fart. Thanks for correcting me! Happens to the best of us, of course!

Edited by SWMissourian
Fixed spelling errors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Jellybeans said:

follow up.

How would you stand up or would you stand up to a President Vang or President Trump on Tariffs then?

Like I said, my first priority would be returning tariff power to Congressional authority, as is delegates by the Constitution. That won’t be easy, and we’ll have to be careful in the way we do it, but we can’t just ignore the Constitution when we find it inconvenient. I would work with President Vang to end the tariffs President Trump enacted, then I would introduce legislation to prevent these executive tariffs from happening again. As much as I agree with President Trump’s America First agenda, that is the part that he was mistaken on, and it has cost many millions of Americans dearly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A heavyset but fit man in his 30s in an IBEW shirt and jeans takes the mic.

Congressman,

I'm employed as a lineman. Its not easy work and there are plenty of accidents but it pays well. But I'm concerned because every couple of years, it seems that some politician around here is trying to break the unions. Once, it was by beating us when we tried to strike. Now, its by encouraging leeches to freeload through right-to-work. Congressman, I'm deeply troubled by this. My union got me healthcare and a decent wage. They also helped me out last year when I broke my leg in a fall. I support my union. But it only works when we all stick together and pull our fair share. I've tried to tell Mr. Granata this on this but he's hopeless. Congressman, right-to-work is wrong for the Midwest. Can we union men rely on you to speak for us on this issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Russ said:

A heavyset but fit man in his 30s in an IBEW shirt and jeans takes the mic.

Congressman,

I'm employed as a lineman. Its not easy work and there are plenty of accidents but it pays well. But I'm concerned because every couple of years, it seems that some politician around here is trying to break the unions. Once, it was by beating us when we tried to strike. Now, its by encouraging leeches to freeload through right-to-work. Congressman, I'm deeply troubled by this. My union got me healthcare and a decent wage. They also helped me out last year when I broke my leg in a fall. I support my union. But it only works when we all stick together and pull our fair share. I've tried to tell Mr. Granata this on this but he's hopeless. Congressman, right-to-work is wrong for the Midwest. Can we union men rely on you to speak for us on this issue?

I understand the defense of the union, but unions aren’t saintly organizations. No one should be forced to participate in things they don’t want to, and a union should prove to the people it represents that it deserves to represent them. You have a right to your money, and you can join and work under a union, but you shouldn’t be forced to. This especially goes for public sector unions, much more so than private sector ones, where it is the government violating the First Amendment and forcing hard workers to associate and pay for things they don’t want to, driving up budgets, corrupting the political system. Public sector right to work is a must, but I’m open to allowing regions and states the say when it comes to right-to-work laws. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Jennifer Lane; Reporter, Chicago Tribune)

Congressman Grant, you've rather publicly broken with traditional Republican orthodoxy on the issue of marijuana legalization. Your party's presumptive nominee, Paul Vang recently broke with traditional Republican orthodoxy on taxes and proposed creating a new tax bracket and raising taxes for the highest income earners, specifically $5 million per year. Do you agree with his proposal? If so, why? If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Magenta said:

(Jennifer Lane; Reporter, Chicago Tribune)

Congressman Grant, you've rather publicly broken with traditional Republican orthodoxy on the issue of marijuana legalization. Your party's presumptive nominee, Paul Vang recently broke with traditional Republican orthodoxy on taxes and proposed creating a new tax bracket and raising taxes for the highest income earners, specifically $5 million per year. Do you agree with his proposal? If so, why? If not, why not?

I agree with Mr. Vang that we have to reform our government finance system to fix the incredibly unbalanced budget, but I have to disagree with him on his most recent plan. He basically wants to redistribute tax burden to the wealthy, and I don’t think that is an equation for economic success, which is important for everyone in the nation. I’m a firm believer in supply-side economics (which is not “trickle-down” economics), so I’m against taking money that could go into more investment and innovation and putting it in the coffers of the government. I’ll gladly go into my economic beliefs more if you wish, but that’s the gist of it. 

Paul Vang and I aren’t entirely traditional, that is true. My unorthodoxy mostly comes from my firm and consistent belief in limited, accountable government, and I’m not yet sure if it fits with Vang’s new tax plan. That being said, though, Paul Vang and I agree on a lot, and perhaps he and I can talk about this tax plan he is proposing. I think we can work together and get a lot done should I be elected as your Senator and he your President. Thanks for the question, Ms. Lane!

Edited by SWMissourian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Grant,

It is a commonly held belief in our party that unions are a problem.  The Republican Presidential Nominee, Paul Vang, proudly stands by unions.  Why should we trust our vote to either Pro-Union candidate, Vang, or Pro-Union candidate, Macmillan, when neither one represents our beliefs against unions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Doomhammer said:

Mr. Grant,

It is a commonly held belief in our party that unions are a problem.  The Republican Presidential Nominee, Paul Vang, proudly stands by unions.  Why should we trust our vote to either Pro-Union candidate, Vang, or Pro-Union candidate, Macmillan, when neither one represents our beliefs against unions?

That is a good question, sir, and I suspect you’re not the only one here with that quandary. Well, I’ve talked to Paul Vang about this in the past. Mr. Vang is for states’ rights when it comes to union policy, so while you won’t get anti-union legislation or policy from his administration, you won’t get pro-union policy forced on you, either. Macmillan, on the other hand, wants to force his pro-union policy on the nation as a whole. With a President Vang, you’d have to focus on Governor Travere and our legislature here in the Midwest when it comes to union policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, SWMissourian said:

That is a good question, sir, and I suspect you’re not the only one here with that quandary. Well, I’ve talked to Paul Vang about this in the past. Mr. Vang is for states’ rights when it comes to union policy, so while you won’t get anti-union legislation or policy from his administration, you won’t get pro-union policy forced on you, either. Macmillan, on the other hand, wants to force his pro-union policy on the nation as a whole. With a President Vang, you’d have to focus on Governor Travere and our legislature here in the Midwest when it comes to union policy. 

So what will President Vang do when it comes to unions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dogslife said:

Mr. Grant,

Do you think Apple should bring there new campus to the Midwest? Why or why not?

I think it would be great if Apple brought their campus to the Midwest. It’d provide great jobs and opportunity here. Why would I be against such a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Calvin Ward said:

So what will President Vang do when it comes to unions?

Well, this isn’t a Vang for President townhall, but I’d assume he’d leave it up to the regional legislatures to set policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, SWMissourian said:

Well, this isn’t a Vang for President townhall, but I’d assume he’d leave it up to the regional legislatures to set policy. 

I ask because you said you spoke together and he hasn’t taken press questions in a little bit. So what will he do?

Edited by Calvin Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Calvin Ward said:

I ask because you said you spoke together and he hasn’t taken press questions in a little bit. So what will he do?

Like I said, Mr. Vang has told me he is for states’ rights on the issue of union policy, which would indicate he would leave it up to the states. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×