The Instigator
Hanspete
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Wocambs
Con (against)
Winning
20 Points

A Republican President is necessary to save the country

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Wocambs
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 701 times Debate No: 64579
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (9)
Votes (3)

 

Hanspete

Pro

I believe that a Conservative Republican Presidential Candidate is necessary to fix all the problems or at least the majority of them that the country faces. I will say sources are optional I won't bug you if you don't have any. I wish my opponent good luck, and expect no profane language.
Wocambs

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Hanspete

Pro

A Republican President is necessary to salvage the ruin that our country is going through. One the world stand our power is drastically fading, Putin is unafraid of us and took Crimea, Iran is undaunted by us and will continue its nuclear program, ISIS will continue to wreak havoc on the Middle East, and China will continue to scare the entire East Asian Hemisphere. At home the threat of ISIS terrorists crossing an open southern border becomes a reality as attacks by radical's on our streets become more frequent. Corporate Taxes soar which drives businesses to tax free or low tax zones such as China.

Taxes:
Republicans generally favor lowering taxes on the wealthy. The current corporate tax rate is 35%. This prevents large businesses from expanding so that they are trapped under the massive tax rate. This prevents jobs that could have been created from never coming into existence. The solution to this is simple follow in the tax code steps that Governor's such as Rick Perry, Rick Scott, Rick Snyder, Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Mary Fallin, John Kasich, and other conservative republican governor's and cut taxes. Since then these states' median family income has risen as has consumer spending. This is the best solution to solving the tax conundrum that we have gotten ourselves into.

Spending:
The answer is simple, cut fat, wasteful spending (like robot squirrels, this is for real I thought it was fake too but nope), and eliminate the glittered special interest group "favors" put in the budgets by corrupt politicians paying off their cronies. Then turn around and use the money saved to begin paying off the debt and meeting overspending problems.

Military Spending and World Affairs:
The Military Budget could use some trimming, begin by cutting wasteful spending and trimming over excessive salaries. We then immediately begin heavier bombings of ISIS and heavily arm the Kurds, and establish a free Kurdistan. We immediately then turn around cut talks with Iran, reimpose harsher sanctions and if they continue the nuclear program give Israel the go-ahead to bomb away. These initiatives will certainly make Putin think twice about what he has done. We then should supply the Ukrainian Army with training, weapons, ration, fuel, and other essentials. This will put Putin back in his place and maybe even destabilize his dictatorship.

Immigration Reform:
First close the border, build a nice pretty big fence and have it patrolled by the national guard. Then round up all known illegal criminals, drug dealers, sex offenders, murders, assaults, and gang-bangers and kick them out of the country permanently. Then get the children care, hospitals, food, water, proper shelter, and then put them up for adoption or find their family. Get the families and other illegals paying taxes and send them to the back of the line for citizenship with temporary visas. Get them off of Social Security and Welfare and put them into a safe job market.

Results:
These reforms will result in a prosperous, attractive United States. These reforms have not and will not happen under Obama and the under Hillary. Electing a President such as Ted Cruz or Rand Paul will see that these reforms take effect and we see our country restored. The reality of the situation is Liberal Democrats aren't doing anything to help us, they only hurt us, a republican president will fix these problems like the multitude of Republican Governors have (and in the case of the blue states of Illinois, Maryland, and Massachusetts they will). We need a republican so that we can re-become the country that we were under Ronald Reagan.

[1] http://www.fin.gov.on.ca... (go half way down the page and it will show you the effect of tax cuts)
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com...
Wocambs

Con

As the “problems” faced by America are undefined by the debate, in this round I shall discuss what I think they are, and how the Republican ideology appears to be incapable of solving them.

1. Elite-dominated Politics

I propose that a government is only democratic to the extent that it takes into account the interests of all people. A government that attaches primary importance to the interests of a small group is an oligarchy, and to the interests of the rich, a plutocracy.

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln asserted that “corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed”.[1] In 1931, Dewey wrote that this is exactly the situation in America, declaring that “politics is the shadow cast on society by big business”.[2]

The opinion of these mainstream American figures is confirmed by the evidence. Analysing 1,779 policy issues, Gilens and Page concluded that: “Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence”.[3] Two further comments they make outline exactly what they mean: “When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose. Moreover … even when fairly large majorities of Americans favor policy change, they generally do not get it”, and “The probability of policy change is nearly the same (around 0.3) whether a tiny minority or a large majority of average citizens favor a proposed policy change.”[4]

If I may assume that this is a problem, for I have plenty of space to develop on that later, then again I refer, extensively, to John Dewey, who criticised the solution that I presume a conservative president would adopt, in the highly unlikely event that he actually wanted to change the situation, which is reduce the size of the government and expand the private sector.
Dewey wrote that the failures of the government, as we have shown that the government is dominated by economic elites, illustrate the: “incapacity of the captains of finance and industry to conduct the affairs of the country prosperously as an incident to the process of feathering their own nests. It would be ludicrous, were it not tragic, to believe that an appeal to the unregulated activities of those who have got us into the present crisis will get us out of it, provided they are relieved from the incubus of political action”.[5] He argues that the idea that the powerful and the privileged will solve the problem they have created if only they are given even more power is a solution just as rational as “eating a hair of a dog which bit you”.[6]

2. Wealth Inequality

Whether wealth inequality is actually a problem is heavily disputed; however, the previous argument I made concerning elite domination of the government should be a fairly compelling reason alone. Increasing wealth inequality could only have the effect of increasing the influence of the economic elite on society, as the elites will simply become even more elite and even more able to influence politics in their small numbers, since their power is derived from their supreme position in the economy.
"Some people think it’s a law that when productivity goes up, everybody benefits," says Erik Brynjolfsson, an economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “There is no economic law that says technological progress has to benefit everybody or even most people. It’s possible that productivity can go up and the economic pie gets bigger, but the majority of people don’t share in that gain”.[7]

This is exactly what is happening, as documented in EPI’s The State of Working America, 12th Edition (Mishal et al. 2012). These are two crucial conclusions:

“According to every major data source, the vast majority of U.S. workers—including white-collar and blue-collar workers and those with and without a college degree—have endured more than a decade of wage stagnation. Wage growth has significantly underperformed productivity growth regardless of occupation, gender, race/ethnicity, or education level”[8]

“This lost decade for wages comes on the heels of decades of inadequate wage growth. For virtually the entire period since 1979 (with the one exception being the strong wage growth of the late 1990s), wage growth for most workers has been weak. The median worker saw an increase of just 5.0 percent between 1979 and 2012, despite productivity growth of 74.5 percent—while the 20th percentile worker saw wage erosion of 0.4 percent and the 80th percentile worker saw wage growth of just 17.5 percent”[9]

The Republican party line, as given by Mitt Romney, is that questioning the distribution of wealth is an expression of “envy”.[10] Republicans cannot be trusted to solve the problem of wealth inequality, which all demographic groups unwittingly confess is too extreme.[11]

3. The Environment

Anthropogenic climate change is supported by 97% of scientists.[12][13] The IPCC predict that in a high-emission scenario, global temperature will increase by approximately 4.5°C, as opposed to an increase of approximately 1.5°C in a low-emission mitigation scenario (relative to the estimated global temperature between 1850-1900).[14] The same report predicts that increases of above 4°C will make the risk of all major consequences of climate change either ‘high’ or ‘very high’,[15] though they note that even under all assessed scenarios, risk of adverse impact still remains.[16]

The IPCC further writes that “Taken as a whole, the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time”, and that “It is virtually certain that aggregate estimates of costs mask significant differences in impacts across sectors, regions, countries and populations. In some locations and among some groups of people with high exposure, high sensitivity and/or low adaptive capacity, net costs will be significantly larger than the global aggregate”.[17]

The Republican position on the environment is near unforgiveable. “Unlike the current Administration, we will not pick winners and losers in the energy marketplace. Instead, we will let the free market and the public’s preferences determine the industry outcomes”.[18] The idea that private investors will throw money at the costly process of producing a renewable energy industry strong enough to complete with the immensely powerful and profitable oil and gas industry is pure fantasy; no one has ever made more money in a year than ExxonMobil ($50.24 billion).[19] The obvious conclusion of ‘leaving it to the free market’, however, does not bother Republicans, since “The environment is getting cleaner and healthier”.[20] I fail to see any reason why we should expect a Republican president to do anything to help avert this catastrophe.

[1] The Lincoln Encyclopaedia: The Spoken and Written Words of A. Lincoln Arranged for Ready Reference, Shaw, A.H., p.40 (http://www.ratical.org...)
[2] The Later Works, Dewey, J., p.163 (http://tinyurl.com...)
[3] Gilens, M., and Page, B.I., Perspectives On Politics, ‘Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
(http://journals.cambridge.org...)
[4] Cited by Cassidy, J. in The New Yorker, ‘Is America an Oligarchy?’ (http://www.newyorker.com...)
[5] Dewey, J., op. cit.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Cited by Greenhouse, S., The New York Times, ‘Our Economic Pickle’ (http://www.nytimes.com...)
[8] Shierholz, H., and Mishel, L., A Decade of Flat Wages: The Key Barrier to Shared Prosperity and a Rising Middle Class (http://tinyurl.com...)
[9] Ibid.
[10] https://www.youtube.com...
[11] Norton, M.I., and Ariely, D., Perspectives on Psychological Science, ‘Building a Better America – One Wealth Quintile at a Time (https://sdsuwriting.pbworks.com...)
[12] NASA, Consensus (https://climate.nasa.gov...)
[13] Abraham, J., and Nuccitelli, D., The Guardian, ‘The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% consensus on human-caused global warming’ (http://www.theguardian.com...)
[14] IPCC, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability p. 13 (http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov...)
[15] Ibid. p.13
[16] Ibid. p.14
[17] IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch...)
[18] Republican Platform, America’s Natural Resources https://gop.com...
[19] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[20] Republican Platform, op. cit.
Debate Round No. 2
Hanspete

Pro

Hanspete forfeited this round.
Wocambs

Con

I'm not interested in continuing a debate if my opponent has no intention of doing so, particularly when I think the argument I have put forward is far more compelling than his as it stands.
Debate Round No. 3
Hanspete

Pro

Hanspete forfeited this round.
Wocambs

Con

Opponent forfeited.
Debate Round No. 4
Hanspete

Pro

Hanspete forfeited this round.
Wocambs

Con

A Republican President is not necessary to save the country because I say so.
Debate Round No. 5
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Liberals 1 year ago
Liberals
Ron Paul Will save this country! But all other republican presidential candidates can go f*ck themselves. But wait, that's against the bible. Stupid Republicans.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
Thank you, the next debate I'll do my best to answer to.
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
Wocambs
I'm sorry to hear that. That sounds cool. Good luck with everything.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
I am sorry I will have to Forfeit the rest of this debate, I am having family issues at the moment, Wocambs i'll challenge you to a new debate later, sorry about that!
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
Wocambs
Don't worry about it haha.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
Sorry it took so long to respond.
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
Wocambs
Sure. I won't include any rebuttals in my first argument then.
Posted by Hanspete 2 years ago
Hanspete
save the argument for round two please just acceptance for round one
Posted by Wocambs 2 years ago
Wocambs
Would you like me to put forward an argument in round one or pass the round so that you can make the first argument in round two?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 2 years ago
Gabe1e
HanspeteWocambsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: A Republican president is necessary, but dang, Con used A LOT of sources and made HUGE arguments.
Vote Placed by Renagade 2 years ago
Renagade
HanspeteWocambsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: a sad shame, as I disagree with Pro, but also with many of Con's points. However, Con did a fantastic job producing his argument. I tip my hat and vote to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
HanspeteWocambsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture