[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Already did a lot of that research. Doesn't seem like a republican or a democrat thing to me? Seems like a statist thing. Democrats devalue the dollar through social programs and republicans devalue the dollar through corporate bailouts. In the end neither is helping. As far as education, if you are relying on the system to educate you then you already lost. Especially today. An education is free today, all that is required is motivation. Universities have their entire libraries posted on the internet for public access and people are whining about how much college costs. Well when the government is offering to pay some 30-60 thousand dollars a year to send some people to school, of course they are going to charge that. Another social program gone awry. Not to say that all social programs are bad, just those that are operated by incompetents, or governments... kind of interchangeable or redundant, pick your adjective

As far as the whole saving the earth thing... no government programs or EPA restrictions or regulations are going to save the environment/nature. thats on us

The war mongering is from both parties. To try and point the finger at republicans on that is just silly. who is the commander in chief?

Have you ever followed any other campaigns? any? Political campaigns would be unrecognizable if there was no mud slinging. It would be awe inspiring to see a candidate not throw a temper tantrum before their elections. I haven't seen it. Even the libertarians almighty ron paul threw his share of temper tantrums. Maybe its different somewhere else but I haven't seen it.

Hm? I thought you were asking what the people of those countries listed above considered themselves to be, and I said I was a Socialist - like pretty much everyone else in Liverpool and the rest of Northern England and Scotland. The problem with us being Socialists is that the vast majority of people live in London and are rich, so they vote Conservative, who turn us more and more capitalist each time they open their mouths. This North-South divide is why Scotland wants independence, why many Northerners want 'New Scotland' to become a thing (ceding the North-Midlands border to Scotland in the event of Scottish independence), and why we've been pushing for devolution for many years. It comes as a result of the South repeatedly digging us deeper into a grave since World War 2, and Margaret Thatcher (hence why we had parties when she died lol) centralising the UK's economy on London so everywhere else suffers. The 'North-South' hate can be loosely dated back pretty much to King William 'the Bastard'/'the Conqueror' razing us to the ground and committing genocide against our people in the 1000s.

/endwhateverthiswas

Just a hint for Americans who want to move to Canada this is what we have to say *Watch to the End*

Believe it or not, I have followed other political campaigns. Of course the candidates try to pull up everything from the past that makes the opponent look bad, but is it necessary to bring their wives into it? Donald Trump has sent out quite a few tweets about Cruz and his wife. That's one example I was referring to when I said they were being wildly immature. One of the current candidates will represent America for the next four years, and they can't even act halfway decent.

I thought it was bad when that one interviewer told Ed Miliband 'everyone prefers your brother, you're rubbish, nobody likes you' and insulted the way he talks during the UK's general election last year. How big of dishonourable scum do you have to be to insult someone's wife just because they're your opponent in some petty high school drama race, especially when they have nothing to do with it?

Also can someone tell me why US presidential candidates spend two years doing the whole 'race' thing? Over here they don't start until about 4-10 months before the actual election.

Didn't Nixon want to drag it on for longer, though? And if I recall correctly he ordered the bombing of Cambodia and took a hissy fit when people said he was just as bad as America's enemies for doing it.

Gawa already responded to much of what you said, but I will as well.

The open letter was factual. The interview with Bernie was factual. This History of the Clintons was factual. I'm not deceiving you. That letter was all true.

First of all, I don't represent "Republicans". I actually consider myself a libertarian. But, with the election having played out as it has thus far, and with almost of all Ted Cruz's beliefs aligning with mine, I've decided to follow Ted rather than the liar, the jackass and the socialist (I don't think Kasich has a chance, btw.)And yes, I don't want to share a penny through the government. The Government's job isn't to redistribute the money I make, it's to protect my God given rights. Not inhibit them. Yes, the Republican party is currently the Christian party. And most Christians donate 10% of their annual income to Charity. The Obama's donate 5% every year. The Clinton's donated 5% (10 counting what they donated to the Clinton foundation.) So us Christ loving conservatives are the greedy ones, ehh? Your Messiah Mr. Sander's has only donated $8,000 out of his annual income of $200,000 per year.

I've read the new testament lol. Christ never said to give away 60% of your money so that Joe down the street could get free healthcare. He said to tithe 10% and help the orphans and the widows. I don't have a problem with charity, or with helping people get back up on their feet. But it's not the government's job to do that. I give more than 10% of my annual income to charities, many of which help men and women who are struggling with drugs, and some goes to help aid families with the adoption process. I don't need Bernie Sanders taking 50% of my annual income and deciding who he gives it to. I can do that.

You saying Republicans hate the poor is just what you've been watching on MSNBC. The liberal government isn't fixing a problem by paying 50,000,000 able Americans to be dependent on them. They're just making it worse by digging us deeper into debt (If you say that social security isn't adding on loads of debt every year, just don't respond to anything I've written so far, as I have no interest in debating with someone who believes that.) By cutting these programs you cut taxes, and by cutting taxes there's more money to be circulated by employers, raising wages and opening up new job opportunities.

And almost all Republicans understand the Education system is flawed. All of our candidates want to reform/get rid of common core and localize education. Explain to me how that's bad?

Good lord. Cutting the taxes on the upper class makes the middle class grow. By providing them with surplus money, they can increase wages and open up more employment opportunities for those who have gone for the past 7 years unable to find a good job that pays well. This increases the size of the middle class.

Again, no candidates has said screw you America education is worthless. They have all acknowledged that it needs reform.

So we can spend more money on bombs and fight as many wars as we can? What the hell? Obama, your DEMOCRATIC president has just sent hundreds of extra troops to Iraq. He has had the ability to pull out of Iraq (like he said he was going to, and had done) but look where we are today.

Dude, stop with the climate change. If you want to stop them from doing it don't buy their products and encourage others not to. It's not the government's fault.

Question: why does charity donation matter? I wouldn't trust half of with them with what little money I get - if I was rich I wouldn't give any of it to a charity except ones I trust. The only one I've ever donated to is about £20 over the past year to the one my grandfather started - not because I want to, but because I feel like I owe it to him. They get more than enough as it is.

@DH32 - I have a question. What are your thoughts on global warming/climate change?

I wouldn't have mentioned charity if G_O_G didn't say Republicans are greedy and selfish and still are considered the Christian Party. I was explaining that because we don't want to give to social security doesn't mean that we don't want to help those who are struggling or are in need, but that it should be done by us (Citizens), not the Government.

I trust charities with my money more than I'd trust Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton

If you still believe that trickle down economics work, you are sadly mistaken. When you give the 1% more money they NEVER redistribute it without being forced to. The Walton family(Walmart guys), between the richest 6 of them control more wealth than 42% of the bottom Americans. What. I'm not advocating Walmart pay employees 15$/hr because that doesn't work in the grand scheme of things, but at least give more hours instead of having more employees and give them 10 or 11$/hr
If they got 32 hours every week they would still make a measly ~17k/yr, but of course once you have full time employees you have to give benefits, oh no!

There is a balance between taxing the 1% and letting them choose what to do with billions of extra dollars that they have to buy even more small guys out of business or just brute force outcompete because you can ship from China and they can't, but if you believe you will ever see any of that money you're sadly mistaken.

I was looking around and none of them are seem too charitable. The Clintons donating to their own charities seems like an underhanded way to lower their net income for taxes and still have control of it which is a strike against them in my opinion.

This article puts Trump in the same category in my opinion, as he has used land donations from bum projects to do some creative accounting.

In Sanders' defense, 4% is pretty close to 5% especially when he's not a millionaire like the Clintons and other candidates(or pretty much most politicians). If you discount his 45k from SS and pensions he's nearly at your 5%.

I notice that you left out Cruz when you were talking about contributions. I think that was rather charitable of you, since he donated about 1% between 2006 and 2010 according to this article. I think I am going to have to take back that internet point I gave you last week though.

Dude, I was gonna be concessionary to you but it is amazing what you say. You seem like you think you are a smart guy. What did Christ say about the rich, greedy folks and how a camel could pass through the eye of a needle? That's all bs right? Christ was lying or you somehow figured out a way to justify greed? Tell us that as you also recite your intolerance of anyone down and in need of help.

The rich contribute to charities a small fraction of their income compared to the middle class. That is a fact. That is always the argument of the rich, let us donate what we want to help people with our beloved dollars. They already prove that would be the big ZERO. If you think they would why do you have a problem using tax dollars for it? Because it would be ZERO. We are the least caring and most greedy of all developed countries in the world. Let me ask you why would a group that have so much discretionary income chose to donate to charities much less than what those that have much less?

I have voted and worked on political campaigns in the US when you were a nothing more than a twinkle in your mamma's eye. I worked on Bill Clinton's campaign and I also worked on Ronald Reagan's campaign. Met him once. This is not his republican party that I can assure you. I had a huge amount of respect for that man. He would be sick if he could see what has happened to his party. That I know.

What Bernie is doing doesn't end with just him. When he says he wants a political revolution, he is referring to everybody revolutionizing the way our democracy works.

Imagine the world where big money is out of politics and a third party is actually viable to win. That would be great, wouldn't it? His revolution doesn't end with him.

Also, Bernie appears the be the type of guy who will do his best to keep his promises -- he is passionate about them. He will fight hard for it. Meanwhile, Clinton will just be like "Meh, I tried" and Trump would just blame the mexicans on his legislation not being passed.

Fun Fact: Bernie Sanders netted a total of $1,867.42 for speeches, all of which went to charity.
One of his paid speeches: https://youtu.be/AXGM3MBT4B8

Why? And is that climate change or global warming or global cooling? The poles receding or gores claim in the 90's that by today the earth would be a barren desert? Do you know what a carbon tax is? Nevermind... there is a reason that no candidate is running on "save the earth" this time around.

There are a couple things that I have learned from the climate change discussion that I found astounding the first time I encountered them. The first is that our activities release enough gases into the atmosphere that we can measure it in metric tons. I knew CO2 has a weight as it sinks to the floor but it is hard to envision enough to weigh a ton.

The other is the amount. This link to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) page indicates that during 2013, the US alone released 6673 million(6,673,000,000) tons of greenhouse gases into the air. This one from the US Geologic Survey(USGS) site also references gas amounts in Gigatons.

I was talking with a friend recently and he pointed out that we have always had volcanoes, swamps and even livestock that release gases and that eruptions have sometimes affected us on a global scale using the 1980 Mt St Helens eruption as an example. The USGS link refers to this, and although the eruption was estimated to release 10 million tons of gas in one day, we release the same amount every 2.5 hours. To make it worse, a volcano erupts then stops whereas we constantly are doing this, and we are adding to the volcanic output that is already there.

When I was a kid there was awareness that this was becoming a problem and there was discussion about what this would do. We cannot predict ahead of time what it will do and we can argue details and effects, but I think it cannot be denied that we are pumping incredibly large amounts of gases into the air and that we can count on it changing things from what we know. You can't put that volume of gas into the air for as long as we have and have things stay the same. We have to live with that and everything we depend on, the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the food we eat will be affected by it in some way.

It looks like general warming has won out over cooling. According to this graphic from NASA, the average global temperature has increased about .75 degrees Celcius(1.35 F) since we started tracking temperatures in the 1800's. We receive a lot of energy every day from the sun and lose a lot back into space, but the net amount has grown. That does not seem like much, and I couldn't find anything relating it to the total size of our atmosphere to link, but it represents a very very large amount of energy.

A lot of discussion regarding warming has focused on loss of polar ice and water levels. One thing I think we haven't focused on much is that our weather is driven by heat and energy. Knowing these things I was not surprised this winter when I went from shoveling to wearing no coat and thinking about mowing, then back to shoveling again. I know it is anecdotal, but I do not think it was just a fluke. It is a trend we are going to see more and more and our atmosphere retains more and more energy over time.

Another discussion I have heard is that we have had global climate changes before in history and that this is no different. The problem is that in most cases evidence indicates that those changes happened over thousands or millions of years. Tress and animals are able to adapt and move in large time frames like these. A grove of oak trees, for example, might have a swamp on one side and perhaps as the water level increases, the oaks on that side might die out but the ones on the other side spread. As long as the water level increases at a rate the oaks can keep up with that grove will survive.

We on the other hand are affecting our environment on a different time scale: decades and hundreds of years instead of thousand and millions, and in ways we cannot know ahead of time. You know how countries are now in conflict over the new land that has been uncovered around the north pole? Perhaps we will be able to grow wheat where we could not before (Bonus along with more oil, right?) eventually, but plants and animals are going to die off in the process because they cannot follow their food or move to where conditions are better fast enough.

The opposite is happening also. We are seeing incidences of diseases that are normally found in the southern parts of our country in the northern parts and I am sure it is not isolated to the US. This article also refers to travel as one of the contributing factors, but discusses the increase in incidences of tropical diseases in the US. Similarly to trees but with a different affect, if insects find favorable conditions like a warmer climate and longer growing season, they are going to move and will bring the diseases they carry with them.

Religion will not have this thread closed. We've been civil for the most part and honestly I'm proud of that. 6 months ago, a debate like this would not have been possible. I've had a nice time debating with y'all!

I have heard that China is indeed a polluter that rivals the US. Much of their manufacturing is for products we buy, so I think in an indirect way they are polluting by proxy. Since our pollution standards are higher here, manufacturing items there is worse than doing it here in that sense.

I see greed as a human characteristic rather than a Christian one. Christianity enters into the argument because it generally eschews worldly things and because most candidates claim they are one. I live in an area with a good number of Amish nearby. They are an extreme example who make this idea a part of their daily lives.

I see a person who accumulates much more materially than they need as someone who is not a good person, and if they are Christian as most politicians in our country claim to be, an insincere Christian which is even worse. I think a candidate who made a claim like this but did not reinforce his words with deeds would not make a good one as it shows me that he is willing to lie for the power it brings them.

WalMarts British presence is generally the more rip-you-the-hell-off and overpriced supermarket.

Aldi all the way <3