@ISIDEWITHQuestionstransportationStarted 7yrs agoActive 5mos ago

Should the government increase spending on public transportation?

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 492 Castelo Branco voters.

71%
Yes
29%
No
51%
Yes
24%
No
12%
Yes, and provide more free public transportation
3%
No, and we should privatize more public transportation services
9%
Yes, but only if the spending goes towards environmentally friendly solutions
1%
No, we have more important issues that need funding
1%
No, I am satisfied with the current amount of spending
1%
No, and we should reduce current spending

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 492 Castelo Branco voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 492 Castelo Branco voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Castelo Branco voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9P3B6HTanswered…5mos5MO

Yes, make free public transport for 65 year olds, disabled people and 50% off for 16 to 23 year olds

 @9HBGBSJanswered…12mos12MO

The government should prioritise the efficiency of the transport system before any increase in spending

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2 days2D

Starmer Throws Netanyahu Under the ICC Bus: UK Backs Arrest Warrant for Israeli PM

Sir Keir Starmer has backed the International Criminal Court (ICC) after it issued an arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.When asked about the issue, Sir Keir’s official spokesman said the Government respected the independence of the court.He declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.The spokesman said: “We respect the independence of the ICC, which is the primary institutional institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes in relation to international law.“This Government has been clear that Israel has a right to defend itself in accordance with international law. There is no moral equivalence between Israel, a democracy and Hamas and Lebanese Hezbollah, which are terror groups.“We remain focused on pushing for an immediate ceasefire to bring an end to the devastating violence in Gaza.”Under the Conservatives, the British government had told the court it intended to challenge the plans for the arrest warrants.However, weeks after coming to power, Sir Keir’s government reversed that position and said it would not object.Downing Street also declined to say whether Mr Netanyahu would be welcome to visit Britain in the future.Sir Keir’s spokesman said: “We never comment on future international visits but my position on the Prime Minister’s support for Israel in terms of its right to defend itself in accordance with international law is very clear.”The spokesman repeatedly declined to “go into hypotheticals” about whether Mr Netanyahu would be arrested if he arrived in the UK.He added: “It’s not up to the Prime Minister to determine other world leaders’ travel schedules. He engages and will continue to engage with the prime minister of Israel in support of Israel’s right to defend itself.”Pressed on what he meant by his comments about the court, the spokesman said: “It means that we respect the independence of the ICC. We respect the fact that the ICC is the primary international institution for investigating and prosecuting the most serious crimes of international concern.”The spokesman went on to say the Government’s “focus” remained an end to the violence in the Middle East, which has been ongoing for more than a year after the Oct 7 terror attacks by Hamas.

▲  148 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…17hrs17H

ICC Arrest Warrants Push Israel Into Unprecedented Global Backlash

Arrest warrants issued for Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister over alleged war crimes threaten to deepen the global isolation of a country already under pressure around the world for its handling of the war in the Gaza Strip.Israeli officials are concerned the warrants and the still-secret details of the charges could imperil Israeli government and military officials who travel abroad and could be detained for alleged war crimes.The move by the International Criminal Court will complicate travel by Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, who would risk arrest in any of the court’s 124 member countries, which technically are obliged to enforce the arrest warrants.The warrants will lead some governments to scale down contacts with Netanyahu and other Israeli officials, according to legal experts and officials familiar with the situation. They could also spur efforts to bring new war-crimes cases against lower-ranking Israeli and Hamas officials in national courts in Europe and elsewhere. More subtly, they could also encourage an ad-hoc pattern of shunning Israeli academics, defense companies and officials that has taken root in countries and institutions angry at the toll of the war in Gaza.The ICC warrants are likely to have the greatest effect on Israel’s relations with countries in Europe, which have been broadly supportive of Israel since Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack and the resulting war. All 27 members of the European Union, along with the U.K., are parties to the Rome Statute, the international treaty that created the court.European countries have been split in their reactions to the decision. Some, such as the Netherlands, say plainly they would enforce the arrest warrants. Hungary, led by right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, invited Netanyahu to visit on Friday in defiance of the ICC’s decision. Germany, caught between its support for the court and its history of the Holocaust, said it would carefully examine any steps it takes should Netanyahu or Gallant decide to visit.“Almost all of them would arrest Netanyahu if he were to visit, which means it’s pretty guaranteed that he won’t,” said Anthony Dworkin, a senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “I’d be quite surprised even if he goes to Hungary.”

▲  178 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1 day1D

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2316 replies