American Presidential Debates Megathread

[Death Metal]

Also depending on which economists you ask, being in debt is actually a good thing.

By economists do you mean your 5 year old brother? And by your comments I am guessing you are two years older than him.

Ad homimen attacks, the last resort of the defeated.

[Samuraikoku]

What magic trick can make $5 trillion of debt disappear and why the hell would we want it to?

Our debt holds China in place. We have their money. They can't piss us off or we won't pay it back ever. Do you want us to lose our grip on them?

yes.

You want China to piss off America?

[North Calaveras]

By economists do you mean your 5 year old brother? And by your comments I am guessing you are two years older than him.

Ad homimen attacks, the last resort of the defeated.

I think hes just getting frustrated, he will cool it down and apologize...right?

[Lessnt]

By economists do you mean your 5 year old brother? And by your comments I am guessing you are two years older than him.

Ad homimen attacks, the last resort of the defeated.

So I have defeated many on these forums then.
Sure being in debt could be good as long as you can make more money from the borrowed money.

[Lessnt]

yes.

You want China to piss off America?

They already do by screwing with the senkaku Islands.

[PapaJacky]

Also, death metal is correct. Tax brackets under Clinton raised far more revenue than currently. At the height of the Bush tax cuts, Federal Revenue as a % of GDP in inflation adjusted dollars was 16.1%, at the end of Clinton's term, the year 2000, that was 20.6%. Nowadays it's at 15.4%.

[Death Metal]

1. He is against the legalization of Marijuana or any other drugs. Like you said, prohibition sucks.
2. Israel is a complete waste of money, they have enough money on there own, and there is no advantage to helping them besides pleasing the rich ones here.
3. Yeah... just like he said that all troops would be home in his first year of office.
4. Point is, he approved it dumbshit.
4b. He should have gotten rid of all of them.
5. We need to cut spending too, not just raise taxes on the rich by a tiny smidget.
6. Obama has not tried to put in enough cuts to help at all....

...You have read the NDAA 2012 right? You do know how it actually affects you and how small of it is in proportion to the entire bill itself? Vetoing NDAA 2012 because of one small section is like vetoing the U.S. Farm Bill because it'd allow the use of Agent Orange.

He also doesn't understand that the NDAA had to be passed by Constitutional Law or we have no military.

Or that the AUMF2001 is what he should be pissed about.

[Samuraikoku]

They already do by screwing with the senkaku Islands.

You actually want them to put pressure on you to pay?

[PapaJacky]

You want China to piss off America?

They already do by screwing with the senkaku Islands.

Those do belong with China, despite not having any population. Using that as your example of Chinese aggression is stupid.

[SebastianTopia]

1. He is against the legalization of Marijuana or any other drugs. Like you said, prohibition sucks.
2. Israel is a complete waste of money, they have enough money on there own, and there is no advantage to helping them besides pleasing the rich ones here.
3. Yeah... just like he said that all troops would be home in his first year of office.
4. Point is, he approved it dumbshit.
4b. He should have gotten rid of all of them.
5. We need to cut spending too, not just raise taxes on the rich by a tiny smidget.
6. Obama has not tried to put in enough cuts to help at all....

1. Nobody's perfect.
2. Sorry, one of our best military allies are not a waste of money.
3. Because he knew as a senator what goes on in the war room, right
4a. Resorting to personal attacks? Also, he didn't approve of the bill that actually started the whole thing, the AUMF of 2001, which says that the president is allowed to assassinate citizens without trial. The NDAA 2011 LIMITS THAT.
4b. He would have if we were in peacetime.
5. Returning taxes to Clinton Levels is hardly a "tiny smidget".
6. He has. Congress hasn't approved them though. BIG difference.

1. Ok... still something bad about him.
2. HAHAHAH Israel's military is nothing. It is all us. We get no benefits from helping them.
3. He lied about doing it within the first year, so why would he say the truth for his second term?
4a. Look up facts and stop lying. He made edits to the bill.
4b. Yeah sure.. POINT IS HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THEM ALL NOW!
5. The tax increase is not even near enough to fix the economy.
6. He has not. Are you looking up anything?

[Norstal]

What magic trick can make $5 trillion of debt disappear and why the hell would we want it to?

Our debt holds China in place. We have their money. They can't piss us off or we won't pay it back ever. Do you want us to lose our grip on them?

yes.

Say goodbye to your cheap products then. Expect electronics, cars, and even bathroom supplies to go up.

[SebastianTopia]

By economists do you mean your 5 year old brother? And by your comments I am guessing you are two years older than him.

Ad homimen attacks, the last resort of the defeated.

Not defeated ...

[Lessnt]

They already do by screwing with the senkaku Islands.

Those do belong with China, despite not having any population. Using that as your example of Chinese aggression is stupid.

They belong to japan.
They won them.And bought them.
That is like saying parts of California belongs to mexico.Simply because there are no people on there.

[Lessnt]

yes.

Say goodbye to your cheap products then. Expect electronics, cars, and even bathroom supplies to go up.

Il go grab a 50 dollar shovel and go crap in the dirt.

[Samuraikoku]

Say goodbye to your cheap products then. Expect electronics, cars, and even bathroom supplies to go up.

Il go grab a 50 dollar shovel and go crap in the dirt.

Unhealthy, and causes risk of disease.

Not to mention uncomfortable.

[North Calaveras]

Il go grab a 50 dollar shovel and go crap in the dirt.

Unhealthy, and causes risk of disease.

Not to mention uncomfortable.

so do toys with lead paint

had to say it lol

[Death Metal]

Oh, and to elaborate on why it had to be passed by law?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution.

NDAA was that military budget bill. We pass an NDAA every two years.

This is the AUMF 2001, which is still in effect, in it's entiritey.

Introduction

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

What this means is, as of 2001, the President was within his rights to name any individual, say he had a part in 9/11, and he could be detained indefinitely or killed without any trial or due process.

The rider in the NDAA2011 LIMITS that to a detainment based on intelligence.

[SebastianTopia]

Oh, and to elaborate on why it had to be passed by law?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution.

NDAA was that military budget bill. We pass an NDAA every two years.

This is the AUMF 2001, which is still in effect, in it's entiritey.

Introduction

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,

Joint Resolution

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Section 1 - Short Title

This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

What this means is, as of 2001, the President was within his rights to name any individual, say he had a part in 9/11, and he could be detained indefinitely or killed without any trial or due process.

The rider in the NDAA2011 LIMITS that to a detainment based on intelligence.

The point is, he made the edits allowing the detainment.

[PapaJacky]

1. Nobody's perfect.
2. Sorry, one of our best military allies are not a waste of money.
3. Because he knew as a senator what goes on in the war room, right
4a. Resorting to personal attacks? Also, he didn't approve of the bill that actually started the whole thing, the AUMF of 2001, which says that the president is allowed to assassinate citizens without trial. The NDAA 2011 LIMITS THAT.
4b. He would have if we were in peacetime.
5. Returning taxes to Clinton Levels is hardly a "tiny smidget".
6. He has. Congress hasn't approved them though. BIG difference.

1. Ok... still something bad about him.
2. HAHAHAH Israel's military is nothing. It is all us. We get no benefits from helping them.
3. He lied about doing it within the first year, so why would he say the truth for his second term?
4a. Look up facts and stop lying. He made edits to the bill.
4b. Yeah sure.. POINT IS HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THEM ALL NOW!
5. The tax increase is not even near enough to fix the economy.
6. He has not. Are you looking up anything?

Just calculated. If revenue as a proportion to GDP was at what it was at the peak of Clinton (20.6% of GDP), than we'd theoretically raise about $675b, which would, even under current outlays, bring us back to 2004 levels of deficit ($450b in deficit). Cutting military spending back to pre-war levels (~$300b) would eat that away easily. That left over $150b could be cuts in anything, but my thoughts are that Obama would rather approve of the Jobs Act to get 2 million more people employed so that our tax base is further broadened, thus bringing back more revenue and the such.

And yes, that's all based on the idea that revenue as a proportion to GDP is a good metric; it's not. There are a lot of factors to factor, such as employment and overall wealth. But that's the idea.

[Death Metal]

1. Ok... still something bad about him.
2. HAHAHAH Israel's military is nothing. It is all us. We get no benefits from helping them.
3. He lied about doing it within the first year, so why would he say the truth for his second term?
4a. Look up facts and stop lying. He made edits to the bill.
4b. Yeah sure.. POINT IS HE SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN RID OF THEM ALL NOW!
5. The tax increase is not even near enough to fix the economy.
6. He has not. Are you looking up anything?

1. Nobody said he was an angel.
2. Dude, THEIR SPECIAL FORCES TRAIN OUR TROOPS.
3. He didn't lie. He was going by incomplete data. He got briefed on Iraq and Afghanistan and that changed shit.
4. He didn't edit the bill! The president can't edit the bill! Again, look up AUMF2001.
5. Never said it did, but cuts alone aren't either.
6. Yes, but you haven't looked up the AUMF2001 yet, so don't play that card.

[Death Metal]

Oh, and to elaborate on why it had to be passed by law?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12 of the Constitution.

NDAA was that military budget bill. We pass an NDAA every two years.

This is the AUMF 2001, which is still in effect, in it's entiritey.



What this means is, as of 2001, the President was within his rights to name any individual, say he had a part in 9/11, and he could be detained indefinitely or killed without any trial or due process.

The rider in the NDAA2011 LIMITS that to a detainment based on intelligence.

The point is, he made the edits allowing the detainment.

You're wrong. The GOP added that rider. The president can't change the writing of Congressional bills. What he DID do, is sign an executive order banning himself from detaining citizens.

[Death Metal]

In fact, I have a name for the person who brought the NDAA2012 to congress.

Howard "Buck" McKean, Republican House (California 25th)

[Lievatia]

Pretty typical of any Presidential debate.

Whoever wins this election won't make a difference in the long run. The world is undergoing the worst recession of the last half-century, and neither Obama / Romney will affect its course dramatically.

I strongly disagree... A lot of economists have argued that the government supporting a number of industries has held keep the recession from becoming a depression akin to the Great Depression, and I for one believe them. Obama did what he could to support companies that had no business (haha) surviving, but were necessary to keep from further collapse, and I believe undeniably did a lot to make it better.

Support creates even larger companies to bust. Competition cannot depend solely on government; government must be a third-party arbiter of a market process of it, otherwise regulations create a situation where entities 'fall though' where in true price and cost they would not.

[PapaJacky]

I strongly disagree... A lot of economists have argued that the government supporting a number of industries has held keep the recession from becoming a depression akin to the Great Depression, and I for one believe them. Obama did what he could to support companies that had no business (haha) surviving, but were necessary to keep from further collapse, and I believe undeniably did a lot to make it better.

Support creates even larger companies to bust. Competition cannot depend solely on government; government must be a third-party arbiter of a market process of it, otherwise regulations create a situation where entities 'fall though' where in true price and cost they would not.

Temporary support doesn't.

[Lievatia]

Support creates even larger companies to bust. Competition cannot depend solely on government; government must be a third-party arbiter of a market process of it, otherwise regulations create a situation where entities 'fall though' where in true price and cost they would not.

Temporary support doesn't.

Not if it is repetitive on certain conditions.