Beto O'Rourke met with the Dallas Morning News editorial board on Friday and answered questions on a wide variety of issues. Here are five of his most interesting answers.

You've talked about encouraging companies to return money to consumers, employees and communities. I wonder if you think that's a higher priority than returning money to shareholders.

Yes, I consider that a higher priority. At a time of record income inequality, getting back to one of the greatest threats this country faces right now, is the level of division and polarization and inequality. A house divided cannot stand, and we have a very divided house.

Income inequality is certainly part of that. A $2 trillion tax bill that disproportionately favors corporations ... with the promise that somehow would will trickle down to employees, who may have gotten a $500, $1,000 one-time bonus, but who we find are working two, maybe three jobs just to make ends meet, is just wrong. No one working a full-time job should live below the poverty line.

You're the only Senate candidate to have called for the impeachment of the president. Do you still stand by that and on what grounds?

I've never called for the president's impeachment. I've never joined any articles of impeachment. I answered honestly the question of a journalist when asked if there was a vote to impeach, would you vote yes? And I said yes.

To paraphrase George Will, no shrinking liberal, you may have wondered whether the Trump campaign sought to collude with Russian government in the 2016 election. On that stage in Helsinki you saw collusion in action.

You may have wondered whether he sought to obstruct justice by firing James Comey, the principle investigator into that collusion. It is beyond a shadow of a doubt that he sought to obstruct it when he asked — by tweet in broad daylight for all of us to see — his attorney general to stop the Russia investigation, despite all of the indictments that had been brought forward, the unanimity of the justice community, on both sides of the aisle in the United States Congress.

It may be politically inconvenient, it may not poll well, it may not be the right thing to say. And I don't say it recklessly.

So here's what I think we should do. We should ensure the complete integrity and independence of the Bob Mueller investigation ... And allow Congress to make the best decision.

Do you believe, if you were a member of the Senate, that there's enough there to convict and remove?

No, I don't know. I don't think you want me to prejudge the trial without seeing the facts and evidence.

I would liken an impeachment to an indictment. There's enough there to proceed with a trial, then I think you need to have all the facts before every sitting member of the Senate and they can make an informed decision in the best interest of this country.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation was not this country's finest hour. Is there anything you think your Democratic colleagues should have done differently?

You need to respond to this in a sober, deliberate, thoughtful way. It didn't look that way, as we watched those hearings.

Questions about what Justice Kavanaugh thought about different Supreme Court precedents, how he would apply the law, his own understanding of the Constitution. I would have loved to have seen more questions along those lines to inform the decisions of the members of the Judiciary Committee.

I think they were understandably concerned about the allegations raised by Dr. Ford, allegations that I believe took an extraordinary amount of courage to raise.

For my part, I would have focused on some things of national consequence from a Texas perspective. We rank 50th in voter turnout, we know that's not because we're lazy or that we love our democracy any less than anybody else does. We know there are structural barriers put in place for some. And we know that we are one of the most gerrymandered states in the union. I would have loved to have asked Judge Kavanaugh about voting rights or other means to address this.

On this issue of concentration of power, the 2010 ruling that said corporations are people and money is speech and corporations can spend unlimited amounts in our democracy, corporate personhood. And some of his rulings that preceded that 2010 Citizens United, I would have wanted to ask him about that.

On religious liberty. His thoughts on civil rights. In a state that's the epicenter of maternal mortality... that made it so hard for women to get the health care they need ... Roe vs. Wade.

This week we had Hillary Clinton say civility shouldn't return to politics until the Democrats reclaim power, and Eric Holder say, "When they go low, we kick them." What do you think about those quotes?

I'm not down with that stuff. That's not me.

That's not who I am. And I know, there's no shortage of advice I'm getting at this moment, with 25 days, to kick him in the teeth and go nasty and be ugly. You cannot turn on your TV without seeing an ad about me, with a grainy face, my vein popping out, I look scary like I'm going to eat your kids.

If we say we're sick of it, and we don't walk the talk, then I don't blame you for not voting for me. I'm not into that stuff.

I just respectfully disagree with Eric holder and Hillary Clinton on this.

If we lose civility and the ability to disagree and be decent to one another, we are going to lose the genius of our democracy.

Elizabeth Souder is assistant editorial page editor for The Dallas Morning News.

What's your view?

Got an opinion about this issue? Send a letter to the editor, and you just might get published.