The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Would I be able to get the Republican nomination for president given the following conditions?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 887 times Debate No: 100509
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




These are the conditions:
1) I would be at least 35(so this would be in the future since I am currently 21)
2) I would have some experience as a politician, such as a representative, senator, or governor.

My stance is that I would be able to get the republican nomination given the above conditions.

Here are the rules for this debate:
1) No ad hominem, personal attacks, or insults
2) The total number of rounds minus one should be used for argument, this is because I am not using round 1 for argument.

Now, some background about me and my stances and what I would do as president:
1) While I hold many left-wing ideas(you can see that on my profile), I don't think many of these ideas should be implemented federally. I think only that which deals with the most basic of rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, should have the federal government involved.
Now, here are the things I would promote that the federal government doesn't already:
2) A ban on federal and state government's from bailing out companies, perhaps an amendment would be needed for this
3) Removal of all or most federal regulations on businesses.
4) Decrease the military budget by at least $200 billion, these numbers come from a 100 billion that I believe the military is wasting, and the other 100 billion would come from withdrawing all of our overseas military bases and bringing all military personnel to the continent.
5) Weekly fireside chats such as those that FDR did, some of the topics of which would include worker cooperatives and cooperative individualism. I would educate people on this topic, since majority of Americans don't even know what a worker coop is. I believe this would help spread worker coops, which are a socialist business model essentially.
6) Income taxes for people who earn $25,000(in 2017 dollars) or less a year would be abolished. There would still be a progressive income tax, but there would be a lower tax rate on higher income earners than there is currently. I think the highest I would have on the highest income bracket is 25%, but I would have to think it through more. I mean, I would also be cutting a lot of programs that I don't think is the business of the federal government, such as welfare, social security, and the military budget would be far less than it is currently.
7) I would compel the federal reserve to give incentive to banks to loan out to worker coops, which most banks don't usually do currently.
8) I would strive for a balanced budget amendment.

I believe that numbers 2,3, 5, and 7 would contribute to worker coops rising and eventually leading to a socialist society, which is what I would want. The final thing I would want to help worker coops is for economics classes to be required to teach about them, but I would leave that for each state to impose or not. Nonetheless, I would encourage them to do so.

Keep in mind I have made no arguments in regards to whether I would be electable; while you could say I made arguments, this was more about trying to explain my positions. I needed to explain my positions in order for my opponent to see if what I ran on would be electable as a republican.

Now, my opponent shouldn't argue against my policies that I outlined and what I would do as president. The debate isn't over those things, again, I just provided them for you to determine if republicans would vote for me to be their nominee for president. If I didn't list something that is on my profile, it's most likely because I don't believe the federal government should be involved in that issue.

Feel free to comment before accepting the debate in order to ask me a specific stance I have on a topic and whether I would push for it on a federal government level. I may not have covered everything I would do on the federal government level.
Debate Round No. 1


I'm going to argue that since Donald Trump was able to get the republican nomination(and even become president) that just about anyone who poses a campaign in favor of the average worker, as Trump did, would easily be able to get the republican nomination.

I would focus my campaign on the things which would help workers. I wouldn't straight out call my ideas "socialist" since that would probably make me less desirable according to the Republican base. I would likely have had a background of being an independent politician, let's just assume I was able to become a representative, senator, or governor as an independent. I believe this would also be appealing, since I'm sure people will be even more tired of republicans and democrats in 20 or so years when I could feasibly run for president. Independents have been on the rise to begin with[1][2] and unless the republicans and democrats radically change, I don't think that trend will change. I would predict in 20 years, the majority will be independents and more and more primaries will become open primaries. My opponent can of course challenge this, I'll provide more reasoning behind this next round though if they do. I'm just seeing if my opponent will accept this idea themselves, if they don't, then I'll provide more sources and facts.

At any rate, because I would focus on helping the ordinary worker, and have a plan to bring about worker cooperatives, I think this could be rather attractive to the middle and poor classes. Now, while this is a socialist idea, I don't think most people are aware this is a socialist idea. To them, a worker coop would just be another business model that, when I point out all of the positives of, they may very well support the idea.

Additionally, I would be opposed to free trade, which is something that has been taking ground because of Trump and Bernie Sanders. I suppose the views of people could change in 20 years, and it would be conjecture as to what it would be, but I think it's safe to assume that the amount of people opposed to our free trade agreements would either remain the same or increase.

Now, these three ideas would be very appealing to the republican base:
1) Lowering of Income Taxes on all tax brackets
2) Removal of business regulations
3) No longer allowing government to bail out companies
4) A balanced budget amendment
5) Cutting a lot of expenditure on our many social programs

If my opponent is familiar with conservative values, it should be obvious that these ideas would be popular among conservatives. Now, while I have a different motive behind doing these than the average conservative, I don't necessarily have to state that to the people. They would just be happy I'm doing this. If I am asked my motive behind these stances, I could make it sound appealing to the conservative base during the republican primaries.

If I am ever questioned on my background of supporting gay marriage, abortion rights, legalization of drugs, or anything else that is not exactly conservative, I can always say that these are just my personal views, and I don't believe in instituting them in the federal government and these things should remain up to the states. This idea alone would also be appealing to the conservative base as they tend to favor states' rights. I'm not sure that my personal opinion on what it should be on the state level will matter too much to the base since I don't believe in doing it on the federal level which is what I would be running for since I would be running for president.

Finally, I would like to stress that I would of course never mention the fact that I am socialist. I realize that would be a killer if I mentioned that. I also wouldn't have ever mentioned that during the time as a senator/representative/governor. So while you, as my opponent and maybe the voters know that I am socialist, I don't think anyone in the general population would know. After all, this is an anonymous forum for the most part, and I've never mentioned being socialist in public.

I'll turn this over to my opponent now.



Where do you stand on Iran, Noth Korea, the Russian take over of the Crimea? How many, if any middle eastern or African refugees will you allow to enter our country? How will you dissuade China from building island bases that could disrupt shipping, and leave our southeast Asian allies begging for military support? How will you justify our continued relationship with Isreal, even when the UN considers them to be a violator of human rights? These are issues that you cannot hide behind the "these are just my personal views" cop out wall that you're building. Your whole agenda is almost solely based on economic matters, (just like a true socialist) and has no mention of diplomacy, national security, and US interest abroad. The republican party has become a socialist party, but issues of national security are still very important to them, and must be addressed. "Weekly fireside chats such as those that FDR did"?!? FDR, there's a strong conservative icon for ya. (sarcasm)

I must point out a huge discrepancy in your policy. You would be opposed to free trade, but would remove all business regulations. I invite you to infuse some clarity into that statement, although modern republicans don't use clarity, so it might not matter all that much. I see your still hung-up on the whole coop thing, good luck with convincing the conservative base on that.

Race relations are becoming a hot item lately. Where do you stand on policing? Do you encourage profiling? How about treatment of illegal immigrants. Will you let them work toward citizenship, or will you encourage deportation? What policy will you make to shield us from domestic terrorism? Will you uphold our gun rights? Will you require a national gun owners registry? Where do you stand on the national ID issue? You canNOT just leave these decisions up to the states and expect to be the republican nominee for president! Domestic policy is insanely important to become president, let's hear your positions on these issues, and let us make a better decision on whether your white house material.

How about environmental issues. Based on your arguments, you seem rather aloof on the global warming issue. Please feel free to expound on that. Do you think global warming is natural, or man made? If you do think it's man made, do you believe it's a matter of importance that must be addressed now? If you do think it's important, how will you justify removing any environmental regulations on businesses? Do you think in your little fireside chats, you could also bring up clean energy? Where do you stand on GMOs, label, or no?

What about healthcare. Repeal Obamacare, or strengthen national healthcare? A lot of people are kicking around the idea of mandatory vaccinations, how bout you?

There are way more unanswered questions about you right now to consider you a strong candidate for the republican nomination, let alone any party nomination. You better start talking about the issues in this next round, or you will not win this argument!!
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent asked a lot of questions this round, so I will try to respond to all of them:

Foreign policy/Iran/North Korea/Russian takeover of Crimea

I am strictly a believer in keeping to ourselves for the most part. Unless there is an American interest that is being violated by the actions of foreign countries, we should not do anything to stop those countries. North Korea is not a threat to us, they are much too small of a nation to do anything to us. They would be fools to attack a nation that has a military more than twice the size of its and an economy more than 10 times as large. The same can be said of Iran. That said, I would still work to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and North Korea already has nuclear weapons so I don't think anything can be done about them to be honest. If I hear of anything where North Korea or Iran is planning to attack us or our allies, I would try to make sure to strike them first.


I believe we are a nation of immigrants, and I don't see why we shouldn't allow as many refugees into the nation as want to come. That said, I would look into having a very strong vetting system in place to make sure we are not taking any questionable people who may not be loyal to the United States, or are otherwise pro-terrorist causes once they get here. I honestly don't know too much about what goes on in relation to how the US looks into information about people who enter the nation, but I imagine there is something in place. I would likely make it as strict as Donald Trump is doing, however I wouldn't do a travel ban like he is. Even if I was in favor of a travel ban, I would have had it gone through congress first, as I personally don't believe the president should have the power to do that by themselves. If congress was interested in banning certain countries from sending refugees here, I would execute that law to the best of my ability and I wouldn't veto the law. This is not something I am very concerned about, so I am perfectly fine with going along with what congress wants, even if I might be slightly opposed to it personally. I just don't consider this issue important enough to myself to force my view in.

China's bases that disrupt shipping

I would push for a resolution in the UN to prohibit China from building further bases. If China still refuses, it may be necessary to escort our allies' trade ships.

Re: mentioning FDR for fireside chats

True, FDR is not liked by conservatives, but I still think everyone liked his idea of fireside chats. I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it.

Free trade/business regulation discrepancy

So, to clarify, I would want a tariff imposed on goods produced overseas. The percent I would do for the tariff depends on how much total spending I would be in favor of doing. This is a complex issue, but the spending we would be doing would be less than it is currently. I don't know the precise number, but as I said, I would cut military spending by $200 billion, then cut medicare/medicaid spending as well as unemployment subsidies. I'd probably leave these things up solely to the state governments, so that would be 1.2 trillion less spending plus another 900 billion, at least according to this source [3] Other than this tariff, I would want to remove all business regulations.


I don't support profiling, but again, I believe this is something that is more up to the more local governments.

Illegal Immigrants:

I would be selective with who I would want to allow to become citizens. The productive and law-abiding illegal immigrants I would allow citizenship to be an option for them, but if they have committed crimes, or are not productive for our society they should be deported.

Domestic terrorism:

I would actually remove a lot of things, such as the patriot act as I believe they are too invasive of people's privacy. Now, for terrorism, I honestly don't believe it is a big issue since it so rarely happens(the media blows it way out of proportion). You're more likely to die by a lot of other things other than a terrorist attack. I would encourage people to purchase guns or other arms of their own to protect themselves from potential dangers. So, what I would do, is work on loosening up on laws for self-defense. If a person kills a person who is about to commit an act of terror, for example, there should be no legal repercussions against that person and I would work on making sure people are allowed to kill people who are threats to society.

National ID laws:

I personally don't think these are that useful. Most acts of terrorism, such as that of 9/11, occurred from people who would have been able to provide proper ID. It just doesn't make sense to impose this when it wouldn't really solve the issue. Additionally, it would be invasive of people's privacy, as everyone would have to be in some sort of national database and the government would know all of your traveling habits. It could also lead to worse invasions of privacy.

Global Warming:

I do think there is some anthropogenic aspect to global warming. However, I don't believe it's as bad as many claim it is. Global temperatures literally have gone up only .85 degrees celsius in the past 120 years[4], that is not enough to be concerned about yet. I would leave the issue of regulating business for climate change reasons up to the states, and, just so you know what I would personally do if I was a governor: I wouldn't impose strict regulations for environmental reasons. I would merely impose what is necessary to keep a relatively clean local environment for the state. In the fireside chats, I would certainly promote the idea of clean energy, but again, I wouldn't pass a law that requires it. I would encourage people to stick to cleaner energy, not so much for the global climate change, but for local climate changes that happen from environmentally unfriendly cars and other products.


I would want to go back to how healthcare was before the insurance companies existed actually(which is pre-world war 2). Doctors were allowed to charge a different rate according to how wealthy the individual was, and there was no law requiring them to charge an even rate for everyone like there is now(it's for that whole reason and law for why insurance companies came to be). I prefer the idea of allowing doctors to charge what they want, because ultimately, doctors would charge the poor hardly anything(in general) and the wealthy more. I find this to be fair. So yes, I would repeal Obamacare, but I wouldn't want to go back to how things were in 2008 and earlier before Obamacare was passed.

Mandatory Vaccinations:

I don't see a reason to make them mandatory. If a person chooses not to take a vaccination, it's their own fault later for catching the disease. The people who do choose to take vaccinations won't have any problems with the disease even if it spreads among other people. It should be the people’s choice to take a vaccine or not.

Further reasons why I would be electable to the republican nomination:

I place liberty above all else, which is why I would end all federal regulations on business, except for tariffs, which I believe would be popular among the republican base. I put states rights as most important as well, and so would leave many programs like social security, unemployment, medicare etc up to each state. I would work on passing a law making marriage a states’ issue, making abortion a states’ issue, among many other things like this. Basically, I would very much be a states’ rights republican. The reason for this is because I believe people should not be allowed to force views on every single American. Leaving things up to a more local government means there will be less people who are forced to have a law they don’t agree with work against them.

Now, I recognize that republicans were the ones responsible for things like the patriot act, and this may make me unpopular among some republicans, but I think it is popular enough to at least revisit some things about the patriot act. Perhaps I could word my campaign on that I would change a few things about the patriot act only. For example, 71% of Americans “disapprove of the act's provision that federal agents can secretly search a U.S. citizen's home and, for an unspecified period of time, not inform the person of that search” and another 51% of Americans oppose “requiring businesses, including hospitals, bookstores, and libraries, to turn over records in terrorism investigations without informing their patients or clients.” [5] I would be willing to compromise on the issue of the patriot act and just remove those specific aspects of it, while keeping the rest. I would make it clear to Americans I would not completely get rid of the patriot act, but only the unpopular parts about it. I would then focus fire chats on reasons why we should get rid of the rest of the patriot act, and wait until public disapproval of the act raises before doing anything to remove the rest.

Bottom line, I would likely do the same thing I said above about all of my policies. I would enact that which is popular, and then discuss with the public reasons why other things I support should be enacted. I wouldn’t do it automatically and not until the public supports it. I believe if I promised to do things in this way, it would make me popular enough to win the republican nomination.

I’m running out of room for this round and will post more argument next round.






I commend my opponent on his detail on the issues I brought up. He forgot the issue of Russia in the Crimea, but I'll just assume he would take a hands off approach to that issue.

How is North Korea not a threat to the US? North Korea is the last living vestige of an extreme communist sentiment that if it ever becomes apparent that the entire world won't embrace communism, then the world must be destroyed! One could argue that the US should pull out of Korea and lift the sanctions we impose and let the South Koreans deal with it, but that could be problematic because North Korea has been known to be aggressive toward countries who simply express their opinions about the North Koreans. Remember how they reacted when the movie "the interview" was released? They could potentially launch a missile that could reach the US mainland. (Quoting google)"It has more than 1.2 million active soldiers, and a further 7.7 million in reserve, making North Korea's ground force one of the largest in the world. Its troops are bolstered by 200,000 highly-trained paramilitary soldiers". As president, you will have to deal with them in some way, shape, or form. Do you have any ideas on a long lasting agreement with the North Koreans, or a military strike that could immobilize thier military and initiate a regime change?

Most Americans don't realize that the CIA covertly initiated a coup in Iran in 1953, wich overthrew the democratically elected prime minister, in favor of a shah that was more friendly with the west. The reason for the coup was so Iran couldn't centralize and obtain the rights to thier oil.(it was a US favor for Britain) One could argue that the bad relationship between the US and Iran is because of the colonialist like actions of the US. Would you be willing to acknowledge our mistake in the past, and look to move forward for a better relationship with the Iranians? We share the same threats. The taliban, isis, al qaieda pose the biggest threat to the Iranians. Iran gives the US, troop information of the taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The President DOES possess the authority to restrict immigration from countries that is deemed a threat to national security. At what point would you proclaim that our country's security is in jeopardy from foreign nationals? Would you consider internment of individuals of a certain nationality, if need be? Would you consider internment a last resort, or would you be willing to enact it more readily?

The US is a major trade partner with China. Would you consider threatening China with a cut in trade relations, as a potential bargaining chip with China? Basically say, if you (China) don't put an emmediat halt on your island bases, the US will no longer trade with you. Obviously that would put you at odds with your protectionist policy of inhibiting free trade, because it seems you would seek to restrict trade with China, regardless of thier millitary island sprawl. Would you use trade as leverage for ironing out our grievances with China? If not, what action, if any, would you take to stop China from occupying land (or sea) that belongs to the international community?

How would you sell your idea of tariffs on foreign trade to the hard right capitalist conservatives? How will you justify higher prices for American consumers? What about American interest abroad, many American companies produce abroad because of lower production costs. Would you try and make the US a more appealing place to produce goods in, and attempt to lure those companies back to producing domestically, or would you just let these companies fend for themselves?

President trump has vowed to repeal Obamacare, but he hopes to put in place a different universal system, because he believes most Americans want some form of universal coverage. If president trump were to build a new universal health care law and it were still in place when you reached office, would you look to repeal trumps healthcare law, in favor of a more competetive, individual system?
Debate Round No. 3


Yes, I would take a hands off approach for crimea as well. I thought I made that clear, but maybe I didn't.

As for North Korea, notice that you talk about their ground forces. How exactly are they going to be able to transport that many troops to the United States? We have the largest navy in the world, we could easily intercept any ships sending soldiers over here and destroy them. Again, North Korea has about 810 vessels(majority of which are small ships), and probably 60,000 naval personnel[6] and no aircraft carriers. Additionally, the range of their ships is so bad, their ships can't even, during peacetime, go from one coast of North Korea to the other.[6] How exactly would they transport their army to the United States if they were to invade us? They can't. Even if somehow they did get ships that can be sent to the United States, our navy is the largest in the world, and there's no way they would be able to transport all of those troops safely without us sinking their ships. Again, I don't consider North Korea a formidable threat. Sure, they may have an ideology completely opposed to ours, and they talk big, but they simply don't have the military strength to do anything. They may have a large army, but no means of sending that army to the United States.

And yes, I would use trade as a bargaining chip with China. If they don't put an end to the island bases, among other practices, I would order a halt in trading with them.

As for the tariffs, I would sell this idea based on how it would be keeping jobs here. Basically, I would argue what I argued in this debate: [7]. I would justify it by bringing up how it would save jobs here, and I would argue that we shouldn't trade with countries that use slave and child labor for their products, as it is immoral. But yes, I would also make America a more appealing place to produce in. As I stated, I would cut a lot of regulations, and I would work to get rid of the federal minimum wage. These two things would make it cheaper to produce products here, and thus would allow more jobs to be created in addition to lowering our prices of products here.

And yes, I would look to replace Trump's healthcare bill, but again, I wouldn't replace it with what we had in between world war 2 and before Obamacare, I would replace it with what we had prior to world war 2, and also encourage hospitals to become worker coops as well. As I said, I would encourage the creation of worker coops.

I honestly think worker coops could even appeal to conservatives, as long as I don't explicitly mention it is a socialist idea. Most people probably won't make the connection worker coops are socialist because Americans have a completely different idea as to what socialism is. Since worker coops would help the average worker tremendously, this could appeal to the middle and poor classes of the republican party. I do admit I would have trouble convincing the wealthy of the republican party to support me, but they are a small minority anyways.



I feel that my opponents insistence on promoting coops, would eventually disqualify him from ever becoming the republican nominee for president. I am in no way, shape, or form a republican, and frankly I think they are unimaginative, and incapable of logical thought, as a party. That being said, I am a militant capitalist, and as far as cooperatives go, I am not impressed. If my opponent were to end all business regulations, then the high cost of production that comes with cooperatives will make it very difficult for coops to compete. My opponent suggests that "as long as (he doesn't) explicitly mention (coops are) a socialist idea" he can sell the idea of coops to the hard right capitalist republicans. He even suggests they won't make the connection between coops and socialism. Whoa, way to pull the wool over their eyes! Although I don't think noe-conservative types are the brightest bulbs in the store, I think they'll figure out that some things up with your idea. They can smell a commie from a mile away.(Sorry Cslave, I don't distinguish communism from socialism) My opponent admits that he'd have trouble convincing the wealthy republicans to support him, then justifies his complacency because they're a small minority anyway. That small minority makes up the deep pockets of the republicans. If you don't get their support, then you don't get their contribution, then your campaign is dead in the water.

Not to say there are no republicans who also have the same "hands off" approach to foreign affairs as my opponent takes. Rand and Ron Paul are hugely popular among younger republicans and independents, but libertarian candidates have trouble actually clenching the republican nomination in the end. To be the republican nominee, you have to talk tough about foreign affairs. You have to say things like "increase our global influence" and "make the world safe for Democracy". I would mostly agree with my opponent on foreign affairs, but I don't vote republican, and issues of foreign affairs, national security and American interest abroad are very important to republicans, and the "hands off approach" just won't cut it for them.

North Korea may not have the capability to attempt a ground attack on the US, but they could steam role over South Korea and be home in time for dinner. What if the people of North Korea rose up to overthrow their government, who's to say that the North Korean ruling class wouldn't blame the US for covertly supporting a coup, and in response they launch a nuclear warhead toward the US as a final death cry? North Korea needs to be dealt with, whether it be in a diplomatic manner, or by means of military force, but they cannot be ignored. To become the nominee for either major party, you must address the North Korean issue.

My opponent claims that we shouldn't trade with countries that use slave and child labor. I'm not sure which country he's referring to when it comes to slave labor because I'm not sure of any country we trade with that allows that. As far as child labor goes, it is heart wrenching to know it exists, but if we stop doing business with companies that do that, and those kids were left without their jobs, would that actually help their situation? Unfortunately, in many countries, families must rely on their children to help make money to support the family. If those childrens jobs were taken away, it would only exacerbate an already bad situation. It's not pretty, but I've never heard anybody suggest a better alternative for those children.

My opponent never answered my question about Iran. He said he would oppose Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, which does fall in line with most other republicans, but it would have been nice to hear whether he would try and have better diplomatic relations with Iran.

My opponent does have many views that would appeal to republicans, like his take on health care, and his science denying stance on global warming is in order when it comes to republicans, but his socialist idealism, and his lack of a robust foreign policy would not allow him to become the republican nominee for president.

Thank You for your interest in our debate, and feel free to place a vote. Thank You to my opponent for another interesting debate, and good luck to him. Peace!
Debate Round No. 4
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
No worries. Not your fault. I should have brought it up earlier. I wont bring up your previous debates in the final round.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Oh sorry, I didn't catch these comments until now. Yeah, you could have brought up previous debates of mine.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Capitalistslave, nice job. You answered all my questions about policy with detail and professionalism. I was hoping to use the next round as if I'm a hard hitting journalist, asking tough questions about your campaign. I was wondering if you are OK with me bringing up some of your previous debates and asking you about them? If not, I'll understand, and will not bring it up. Please let me know soonly if you can.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Thanks for your understanding.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Smoosh: oh, good point, I may have made a mistake by saying the first round of debate shouldn't be a rebuttal to the opponent's argument. I often just include that in all of my debates and I think I included it in this one without thinking about how this one kind of would need to be a rebuttal. You can offer a rebuttal if you want. I'll make sure to mention in my next debate round that I approve of that and voters shouldn't penalize you for breaking that rule.
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
I'm finding it difficult to do my opening argument without it sounding like a rebuttal, but since the discussion is about you, I can't think of any way to avoid this. Will you allow me to continue, even though I can't post an opening argument without rebuttals?
Posted by Smooosh 3 years ago
Do you mean a traditional Republican president, or a modern (national/socialist) Republican president?
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
This is more of a topic for the forums section.
Posted by Capitalistslave 3 years ago
Mharman: If you believe that, then why not accept the debate?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.