|
Post by Adam Awesome on Sept 9, 2013 3:56:14 GMT -5
Now, I know that many on the left believe that simply raising the minimum wage would solve everything, but it's not true. We must build more jobs. However, large corporations have no stake in creating jobs. They are already as big as they will get. We must support small business. Take all money given to corporations like Walmart, and give them to small businesses. This would create competition in the market, making it a workers' market, and raising wages naturally, without the need for government intervention. The Corporatists, who want to give big corporations full control of the market will fight this tooth and nail, but we must not give in. Now, that is not to say that I would not support raising the minimum wage, but it must be limited. I would rather allow the market to correct itself through added competition, and keep government intervention at a bare minimum. I do believe that we will have to do something to assist underemployed workers who do not make enough to provide for their families. In lieu of raising the minimum wage to the 15 to 21 dollars an hour that is the cost of living for a family of 5 min many states, I would like to see a new corporate tax made, that is paid by all US businesses. This money would be used as a form of welfare to help make up the difference. I do agree we need to demand these corporations need to pay their fair share, but I can guarantee that would never happen if we don't have a strong, national government to enforce these regulations on the corporations. And it's been proven before. Corporations and other large businesses say they would create jobs if given the opportunity and also given some generous tax breaks, but did they? No, and if we were to go on a commitment they made that they would give corporate money to a lot of these small businesses as long as no government intervention took place, the corporations would win again in the long run and would lie right in the faces of the government. It's a pretty basic concept. There has to be someone in charge to make sure there's not scandals, jobs being sent elsewhere, or tax evasions happening, or else it will be a Gordon Gekko-like corporate controlled market and that someone is the government. Corporations pay such small amounts of taxes because of all the tax loopholes secured by lobbyists. As a result, it's essential that we assist the government in ending corporate welfare and all the corporate subsidies which destroys a fair, competitive market and of course, comes at the cost of the taxpayers. I agree there does need to be a corporate tax as a result, but forcing all businesses to pay it would be uncalled for. We have to reduce the burden of these small businesses because they make up more than half of the countries industrial production so therefore, we could slash taxes for the small businesses, increase taxes significantly high for corporations whether they like it or not, and then on a financial level, that would enable both the small businesses and corporations to raise the minimum wage to at least $12.00 an hour. Corporations might hate it, but who cares? It's time they start contributing something to America and not overseas so they can make a nice profit and that's why we must have a government who enforces all of these new regulations.
|
|
|
Post by Adam Awesome on Sept 9, 2013 4:21:12 GMT -5
Although I'm a member of the Democratic Party, believe it or not, I and my Vice Presidential running mate are strictly against any military action in Syria whether the Obama Administration or a number of Congressional Democrats support it or not.
It's clearly an abomination that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people including 400 who were children and I extend my best wishes to them, their families and friends. However, this is no reason to create another huge conflict that will lead to another huge war. For one thing, gas prices will rise significantly if a war in Syria takes place and we will only deepen old Cold War tensions with Russia this way along with Iran. Syria has already threatened at this point that if anyone attacks them, they will retaliate, so if we bomb them, Israel is believed to be in huge trouble from that point on. The other Arab nations are entirely against Assad and his regime and we should have been doing exactly what they have from the start of the Syrian Civil War and that's aiding the opposition with weapons and nothing more. And even that I'm a bit hesitant on because over there in Syria, we don't know who's good and who's bad. In fact, a recent horrifying video shows the anti-Assad opposition giving 7 of the pro-Assad soldiers one of the worst ways to die ever having them lay down face first on the dirt ground and were each shot multiple times. Both sides are crazy as hell and that's simply the Middle East for you! So my stance on this is to firmly remain isolationist until Assad is eventually overthrown.
This will amount to another huge recession as well if we get involved in this because it all goes back to these corporations getting away with everything and the middle class and poor in the end having to pay for another war. We're not even out of Afghanistan yet and we aren't expected to be until 2014 and we're already talking about the chance of starting another one? Now I'm fully aware that this bill is expected to fall in the House of Representatives which is good, but it's still a matter of making sure we don't do something we might regret in the future. The UK which is controlled by the war-loving Conservatives under David Cameron recently decided to not go to war with Syria and when you have a right-wing controlled country saying that, you just know it's bad and getting involved in this mess would put us in a financial and military wreck.
|
|
|
Post by Arrogant&Confident on Sept 9, 2013 4:22:31 GMT -5
"Next question...would you legalize abortion"
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 5:06:59 GMT -5
Before I make my opening statement, I would again like to wish all of my opponents good luck, and say that I am very honored to be here. Now, to answer the first question, it is the position of myself, and the Exceptionalist Party, that marriage should be taken completely out of the hands of the government. The government should not be allowed to dictate whether or not consenting adults are allowed to marry each other. We support gay marriage, as well as polygamy, and even incest, as long as all involved of consenting adults. We would like to see marriage legally defined, in the constitution, as a social contract between consenting adults. The freedom of choice must always be respected. Now, Mr, Fitzgerald is right on many points. We do need to pass laws to make sure that marriage discrimination is not allowed. States that have a history of descrimination against gays and other non-traditional couples, should have the same requirements for changes to marriage laws, as Jim Crow states have for changes to voting laws. Laws such as DOMA, which allow states to simply ignore legal marriages from other states, which violates a constitutional requirement that states must accept legal contracts and licenses from other states, can not be allowed to stand. They must be repealed. However, his comparisons of US laws to the laws of the middle east and african are a little far fetched. Many of those nations punish homosexuality with death. Last time I checked, being gay is not a capital crime in the US. There are always nutjobs who will do harm to a person for being gay, shown in cases such as the murder of Matthew Shepard, but these types of people are a fringe minority, and have no real influence. We do, however, need to make sure to stem discrimination, against not only gays, but polygamists, incest couples, and all other consenting adults who are told that they do not have the right to choose who they want to marry. Mr. Dagg, if there's anything far fetched within this debate so far it's promoting polygamy and incest of all things. Now for those who don't know, polygamy is when a married spouse has more than one spouse and to make it worse, these are often practiced in cults and by Mormons (Romneyism) and is primarily legal over in the Middle East, Burma or North Africa which also happen to be the same places where same-sex marriage is unheard of and could be punishable up to life in prison or even death. Now just like with Adam & Eve or Mary & Joseph, it's clear that God only intended people to have one spouse to live the rest of their life with and religious practice or not, polygamy is wrong and deserves to remain abolished under U.S. law. And incest is just as bad. In 48 states it's punishable from 5 years to up to life imprisonment and rightfully so because incest is the practice of having intercourse with family or blood-related relatives. It's okay to tell your family that you love them or even hug them or kiss them on the cheek, but when you have sex with members of your family, I think the love and care among family and relatives is being taken way too literally. There are millions of other humans that aren't related to you on the planet and while it might be harder to find that non-blood related soul mate, in the long run, you know it's the right thing to do. I also see a problem in calling marriage between "consenting adults." By the age of 16, I think boys and girls are smart enough to know what the right choice is especially when it comes to something as serious as marriage. If they love someone enough, they should be able to marry before they legally become an adult at age 18. All that would be required is simple parental or guardian consent in order to make sure it's the best possible decision for the two teenagers. Here in Ohio, that's exactly how it is for teens 16 or 17 years old and it's still protecting what the definition of marriage is while still ensuring via the government that all requirements are met for minors before marrying. You see, Mr. Dagg, I agree that freedom of choice should be protected in marriage, but only to a certain, common sense extent. When there is minimal government intervention to make sure we don't have any cases of marriage with polygamists or incest, it can prove to work. The idea behind a functional government is that order is maintained and that no havoc or flaws happen in the correct definition of marriage which is a relationship between two consenting adults or two consenting minors. And in my last statement, I was in no way comparing the laws of Sudan to ours. I was merely just saying that we need to work on our own laws because as much as we would like to end a law over in a sickening country like Sudan which puts gay people to death or in Russia where gay people get jailed, it would too extremely hard to do while maintaining a good, foreign relationship with some of these homophobic countries. I do believe that when the time comes whether it's in decades or maybe even centuries, they will evolve just like us and that's my next point. Mr. Dagg, these crime-filled, gay hating "minorities" as you call them are still all around. We hear stories every day in the news somewhere around the country that someone was attacked for being gay. In fact, less than a week ago, a gay guy named Jared Fox right over here in Cleveland, Ohio was about to enter a gay bar when a homophobic, white gang went up to him and beat him so bad he got a ruptured eardrum and nose with some other damage around the face as well and they stole his phone and credit card. To make it even worse, just like the 2 guys who attacked Matthew Sheppard, the cops never did anything about it and while they're "trying" to find the gang, in reality, their going to get away with this for awhile before justice finally catches up to them and the federal government will need to step in again to throw some of these gay hating, crime dwellers in prison. That's just one thing. Not only discrimination against LGBT from fellow pedestrians which more than 50% isn't even properly dealt with, but also prejudice that states including mine here in Ohio that allow for such things to take place. There used to be a native, gay couple that lived here in Ohio and since we have a ban here on same-sex marriage, they went over to Maryland where Governor Martin O'Malley recently signed marriage equality into law and got married there. However, when they went back to Ohio, even though they were legally recognized by the state of Maryland and by the federal government, our Republican controlled government here refused to recognize them simply because they were gay. And here's the thing. Ohio law states that if you get married in another state where some type of marriage is legal that's not legal in Ohio, it would be legally recognized than in Ohio if they got married in that other state under those certain conditions and then moved back to Ohio. For example, if two 14 year old teenagers from New Hampshire get married (where it's legal under conditions) and then move to Ohio, then under Ohio law it's legal. But bare in mind, the same kind of thing happened with this gay couple, but just because they're gay, it wasn't recognized. To make it even worse, one of them had Lou Gehrig's Disease and died soon after, and it had to go to the courts where a judge finally ruled that was unconstitutional and Ohio had to recognize the marriage. That's what's being dealt with across the country. It's simply Republican obstruction taking place and I can guarantee there would be marriage equality in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Ohio and so many other states if it wasn't for Republicans restricting the rights that LGBT deserve in a nation where the Pledge of Allegiance states, "with liberty, and justice for ALL." This means NOT all of one kind, but all....everyone. The fact that you diagree with a person's choice does NOT give YOU the right to decide they are not allowed to make that choice. Unless their choice has an effect on your life, it's none of your business. This has been one of the leading arguments to promote gay marriage, and yet liberals have ALWAYS refused to allow the same argument to polygamists and other non-traditional couples. It's one of the leading examples of democrat hypocracy.
|
|
|
Post by NEW FOR MORDOR(Noe) on Sept 9, 2013 12:46:18 GMT -5
"Next question...would you legalize abortion" omfg too many questions!!1 urgh! ok...
Hello, I am the president of the women's right party, upon which, this question is a highly controversial topic which a lot of women in politics would like to see be legalized.
My first point on this is why women want to have an abortion, there are many reasons, some for medical reasons and some are not. Since all of you are men here I will expand upon why abortion SHOULD be legalized, but WITH controlled laws.
1: Women should have the right to their own body, we can get tattoos, we can get piercings, we can get plastic surgery but can we abortion something which is developing inside of us? No we cannot, in some places in the world, it is legal, yet in America it is not.
2: What happens if the , or the mother will not come out of this birth either a) Alive or b) with some sort of condition which can be either temporary or permanent. Many babies die within moments of being born, as my aunt once experienced. If she knew before hand, before giving birth that her child would not survive a day, would she have got that abortion? likely. But why can't she have the CHOICE. It's not that all women will sort getting abortions but it is the choice that women want.
Many women depending on the situation will feel low during a pregnancy due to depression or whatever the circumstance may be, will they want to continue with their OWN life? who knows. Could start abusing drugs which will harm the , if she knows that mentally she cannot cope with having such a due to it being a pregnancy that she did not plan, she deserves the right to abort.
Children who will come out completely deformed or have problems coping with day to day life, does a mother want to see that? their child being rejected by society and knowing he does not have long left? She deserves the CHOICE
3: This one is rather controversial which keeps the topic of should it be legalized, but rape. Number of women raped in 2007 under the UCR(Uniform Crime Report) definition: 91,874. Imagine how many of these women actually become pregnant? Both the mother and the child will go through traumatic times with this, the mother knowing that her child was not conceived out of love, but of fear and pressurement and for the child, knowing that they were planned and that they are in fact a piece of evidence of a serious crime.
So for these reasons, why should women have to through other methods of aborting their unborn child? If there was units set up which women do have the choice to abort, would it not bring in jobs? Expand hospital units or privately owned clinics? Lets not forget the factor of it being a safe method which is carried out by professionals and not some person who thinks they can do it, or simply trying to kill the yourself by drugs or physical violence to the womb area to make a miscarriage happen.
YET, with this, there has to be strict regulations on who can and who can't. We have teenagers trying to get pregnant to be famous on a show about underage pregnancy. There is companies and commericals world wide who try and promote the use of contriception which will prevent unplanned pregnancies. So there is that limitation, upon which if I had to set up clinics, that not everyone can abort. There is always the option of adoption for those who simply cannot conceive due to ovary problems or sperm problems or simply due to same sex couples.
Women are fighting every day to get this legalized, we all seen a few months ago about the huge rebellion of the shut down of Wendy Davis'. So why not legalize it? We all want democracy right?
|
|
|
Post by daggdag on Sept 9, 2013 14:56:20 GMT -5
I would like to point out that the Exceptionalist Party are against all wars of choice. We did not support Korea, Vietnam or the war in Iraq. However, do see a clear difference between fighting a war for no reason than boosting weapons sales, but fighting a war to stop innocent people from suffering. America can not stand aside and let people suffer. There is no greater evil than when good men do nothing. We do support militay action in Syria, but it must be limited, not a full invasion.
Now, the Syrian government claims that the troops who used chemical weapons did so on their own without the knowledge or consent of the President Assad or any member of the Syrian government. If this is true, the US should simply ask that the troops who carried out the attacks, and all officers under their command be arrested and charged with war crimes. If the Syrian government refuses to do this, we should give support to rebel forces through air strikes, intelligence, and through military advisors. We should aid the Syrian rebels win their own war, and not just win it for them. I believe the US should also use this incident to pressure Syria into joining the Chemical Weapon Convention, and dispose of their chemical weapon stocks.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 15:52:58 GMT -5
Hail kind sirs, I have been in communication with the leader of my party, The Monarchy party, who regrets that he has no access to the forum as his computer hath exploded verily. Based upon British in absentia law for a monarch in question, itself formed by the time Richard was away in the crusades. I have been granted the right to post statements for my liege that he hath sent to me through mobile phone. Moderator permitting I shall make statements on his behalf. What say ye?
|
|
|
Post by Arrogant&Confident on Sept 9, 2013 16:14:09 GMT -5
Hail kind sirs, I have been in communication with the leader of my party, The Monarchy party, who regrets that he has no access to the forum as his computer hath exploded verily. Based upon British in absentia law for a monarch in question, itself formed by the time Richard was away in the crusades. I have been granted the right to post statements for my liege that he hath sent to me through mobile phone. Moderator permitting I shall make statements on his behalf. What say ye? I'll allow you to speak on his behalf, but keep in mind you will still have to participate in the Vice Presidential Debate.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 16:16:33 GMT -5
The Monarchy Party believes regarding gay rights that they should be privy to all the same rights as people of their respective classes. They can toil in the fields, bake bread or build things with the rest of the peasants. If they are high born they may pursue knighthood or diplomatic posts, perhaps even explore philosophy. One cannot by judged wherein they so choose to sheathe their sword.
They however may not marry as we believe that it would offend the Pope which in turn would be horrible for the country if we were excommunicated. You see the rabble are very religious and would see excommunication as a bad omen which in turn would lead to revolts, rebellions and even some refusing to pay their taxes. We would then be required to repent in order to get the Pope to lift it, Neither of the leaders of the Monarchy party have any desire to go to Rome wearing a shirt made of hair or flog ourselves and beg for forgiveness. We also do not have money to pay for indulgences so it's far simpler to not anger the crusty old Italian.
|
|
|
Post by Captain2 on Sept 9, 2013 16:22:17 GMT -5
Reguarding your second question it is our belief that minimum wage should be lowered to keep the serfs in their place. They should be given land owned by a lord and in exchange for food and lodging they will make use of the land, growing crops and raising animals which in turn may be taken by their lord to market for sale. However any attempts to leave the land that they have been assigned to may be met with imprisonment or death.
We realize that it may seem a harsh measure but imagine the teenager at the local Mcdonalds who gets your order wrong constantly, would not both you and him be enriched if he was taken from the aforementioned burger market and instead put in a field where he could grow corn for you and learn real life skills? Everyone would be so much more invested in the well being of the nation as well as the growth of our Empire.
|
|