Positions

I strongly support the freedom to practice whichever religion you want, as long as it does not encroach on anyone else's rights.

I believe that church and state should be completely separate; churches should be treated like every other business, including taxation and any other laws.

For transformation, we need power, and in democracy, power is people; pushing individuals from the left is opposed to the primary goal of any political idea or movement, which is to grow. The left's anti-religious view is nonsensical, especially since it prevents the world from seeing proper material change.
[1] [2] [3] 

WIP

A​bortion is a complicated debate; I do not get caught up in the morality of abortion since it is exceptionally complicated; I am 70-30* pro-choice and pro-life ethically; both sides have decently valid arguments. I prefer debating the legality and policy of abortion, which I am 100% pro-choice.

The abortion debate always boils down to personhood and assigning said personhood to any newly created life. The answer to the personhood question is incredibly arbitrary and metaphysical. The two most common points to attribute personhood are conception and when a being gains sentience. Since I believe that humans cannot make strong claims on the metaphysical, due to our inability to justify said statements, I feel uncomfortable enforcing my morality on other people via legislation or policy, so I would rather be pro-choice and let people choose for themselves.

So, where do I draw the line?

Well, not at birth for once. The idea that being born awards you a moral consideration is not very logically consistent to me or very founded. I would not draw the line at conception either; yes, it is human, but being human does not necessarily equate to being a person. I do not have an exact position where I would draw a line yet; however, maybe after more consideration and listening to more arguments, I would end up with a line somewhere.

*70-30 is an arbitrary number, as I do not have a way to calculate this. 

"The child who is not embraced by the village will burn it down to feel its warmth."

I firmly believe that 99.9% of humans are woefully unequipped to raise a child. Two humans cannot raise a child single-handedly, and we do not even trust them with this task. This is why we have a formal education system, for example. Furthermore, most parents do not even have the time to raise their kids due to the job/jobs they work to sustain their family.

The rights solution to this issue is to have a father who works all day and a mother who can stay home and raise the kid/kids. An immediate worry comes to mind: we are giving one person the responsibility to raise a child, or even multiple children, which of course, nobody can do. Another worry is that emotions such as worry, sadness, stress, anger, and even depression are far more prevalent in stay-at-home moms than employed moms.

The solution I propose to this Parent Question, or for short the PQ, is a robust support system for children. Free education from literally day 1, with the focus being a more Montessori approach to education. More time should be spent at "school"* to provide as much support as possible. Kids will develop their values and ideas instead of having them drilled into their heads by parents. A higher focus on rehabilitative justice for children instead of punitive, such as "grounding" or even "spanking," which have been demonstrated not to work and even potentially damage a child's psyche. Children will grow up with other children interacting and developing social skills while being carefully monitored by guardians. Children will receive love and care from said guardians, which they could potentially not get at home. The children then return home, where their parents can also take care of them. The ideal ratio (time in "school": time at home) would be from 60:40 to 70:30, thus giving a child more time at school than at home, ensuring the child is cared for and appropriately educated.

*I put "school" in quotation marks because the system does not fit the traditional definition of school, but I lack a better word.

Generally, immigration seems to be a net positive to society from an economic and social standpoint.

Most studies I have looked at show no statistically significant negative relationship between diversity and social cohesion; on the contrary, studies find a positive relationship between inter-ethnic contact & trust in ethnically heterogeneous communities. Thus, I find that the plurality of data does not support - and largely contradicts - the assertion that diversity hurts social cohesion.

Marijuana:

The introduction of medical marijuana laws (MMLs) leads to decreased violent crime in states that border Mexico. In addition, MMLs in inland states lead to a reduction in crime in the nearest border state. Results are consistent with the theory that decriminalization of the production and distribution of marijuana leads to a reduction in violent crime in markets traditionally controlled by Mexican drug trafficking organizations.

Medical cannabis laws are associated with significantly lower state-level opioid overdose mortality rates.
Because chronic pain is a significant indication for medical cannabis, laws establishing access to medical cannabis may change opioid consumption rates and overdose mortality related to opioid analgesics in states that have enacted them.

After legalization in colorado, consumption rates for 18+ rose slightly and 18- drop significantly almost by half, which leads me to believe that consumption of marijuana in the <18 will drop significantly if its legalized. This could be due to a plethora of factors: you need to be over the age of 18 to purchase marijuana.
-------------------------------------------------------
Other Drugs:

There is a vast lack of evidence showing that punishing people for drug consumption will deter them from consuming it; on the contrary, there is much evidence of the opposite.

You also have the added tax benefit of legalization and all other benefits from a government having some control of a market.

Another massive issue with not controlling the supply of drugs is lacing, which can lead to overdosing.

The most effective way to solve current issues in every (democratic) country is by working within our current system. For example, voter turnout in the United States tends to hover around 60 percent in presidential elections and 40 percent in midterm elections. Nevertheless, in other countries like Australia, Belgium, and Argentina, voter turnout routinely exceeds 85%. The reason is that these countries have mandatory voting. The US has the most efficient democracy, which goes a long way, but it will not go anywhere without a population actively participating in the democracy. It upsets me that people constantly complain about the system but will not actually go out and vote on the policies they "care" so much about. There are also other reasons why people do not vote, such as that election day is not a national holiday. All of these issues could be easily solved if mandatory voting was implemented.