GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates

TotalInsanity4 · Oct 4, 2015

I actually recommend voting no matter what, it's the only way you can influence the election. Not voting is throwing away one of your only opportunities to influence the government's decisions

Also I highly recommend that everyone vote in their state's primaries, in most states if you're going to be 18 by November of 2016 you can also vote in the primaries

Hungry Friend · Oct 4, 2015

I went by how likely they are of winning their respective party's nomination rather than personal preference, so I went with Hilary, Sanders, Trump(unfortunately) Rubio and Carson. It's still incredibly early though and once the race really starts heating up, people will feel more pressure to make their choices more definitively and I hope that environment causes Trump to fizzle out. Personal opinion aside though, Trump is very good at pandering, better than most long-time career politicians like Hilary, Sanders or Jeb. I don't trust anyone on the list and I know basically nothing about Ben Carson but I prefer Sanders over everyone else. He's better than ultra robotic, Romney-esque Hilary at least.

A bit OT but I'm feeling some serious schadenfreude watching Jeb Bush squirm.

Smuff · Oct 4, 2015

I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns. C'mon people, how may more kids have to die at school before anyone does anything ?
And in anticipation of the tired old it's-my-right and self-defense arguements, how many times have you actually needed that assault rifle ? Just admit it, guns give you a hardon and make you feel like the king of the world.

Etheboss · Oct 4, 2015

Too bad this is an USA orientated debate, i now have nothing to contribute (wich maybe is for the better

)

Lacius · Oct 4, 2015

Smuff said:
I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.

Then you would like the Democratic candidates (e.g. Hillary Clinton, the likely nominee).

Hungry Friend · Oct 4, 2015

Smuff said:
I'm not American so it's none of my business, but my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns. C'mon people, how may more kids have to die at school before anyone does anything ?
And in anticipation of the tired old it's-my-right and self-defense arguements, how many times have you actually needed that assault rifle ? Just admit it, guns give you a hardon and make you feel like the king of the world.

The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general. I don't even own a gun but I believe people have the right to defend themselves and furthermore, I don't think cops should be allowed to use anything that your average civilian isn't allowed to purchase and it's really creepy how militarized the police are. I'm with most ring wingers on the gun issue although I lean left for the most part. It's more our culture of fear and violence and a very bad mental health system that are to blame, not the guns.

Haloman800 · Oct 4, 2015

Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics works. You are just a child who wants "free" things.

With that being said. CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP! We need to secure our border, otherwise we are not a country at all, we are just a dumping ground for criminal scum of every other country on earth.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Hungry Friend said:
The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general. I don't even own a gun but I believe people have the right to defend themselves and furthermore, I don't think cops should be allowed to use anything that your average civilian isn't allowed to purchase and it's really creepy how militarized the police are. I'm with most ring wingers on the gun issue although I lean left for the most part. It's more our culture of fear and violence and a very bad mental health system that are to blame, not the guns.

Agreed. See below

Lacius · Oct 4, 2015

Hungry Friend said:
The nuts who commit these awful shooting could in nearly every case pass a background check and I don't support getting rid of or any sort of extreme restrictions on guns/the 2nd amendment in general.

Background checks demonstrably reduce gun violence. No one is claiming that they would have stopped every mass shooting in recent years, but it's incorrect to say they could have passed a background check in nearly every case.

Haloman800 said:
Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics work. You are just a child who wants "free" things.

Most if not all of the Republican candidates for president endorse some form of trickle-down economics, which demonstrates on the Republican side a fundamental misunderstanding of how basic economics work. Donald Trump and Jeb Bush, to name two, have presented tax plans that create huge budget deficits because they make debunked trick-down assumptions.

To talk about free stuff is to create a strawman. This isn't about getting free stuff. There is a legitimate income inequality problem in the United States that the Republicans generally don't seem interested in talking about.

Smuff · Oct 4, 2015

Haloman800 said:
Anyone who votes Bernie Sanders has absolutely no idea how basic economics works. You are just a child who wants "free" things.

With that being said. CAN'T STUMP THE TRUMP! We need to secure our border, otherwise we are not a country at all, we are just a dumping ground for criminal scum of every other country on earth.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Agreed. See below

Yeah, I just don't get it. We're not allowed guns in the UK and we have very little gun crime. Our police are not out of control gun toting maniacs, so we don't feel the need to gun-up to defend ourselves against our government. It must be a very specific American paranoia. I don't want to stir up a whole row on this and derail the OP - Each and everyone of us is entitled to our opinions, and mine (while by no means any more "right" or "wrong" than your own) are purely that - mine.

Haloman800 · Oct 4, 2015

Lacius said:
Background checks demonstrably reduce gun violence. No one is claiming that they would have stopped every mass shooting in recent years, but it's incorrect to say they could have passed a background check in nearly every case.

The Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes (Batman), drove past several movie theaters until he arrived at one that banned guns. If one person in the theater had a gun, the catastrophe could have been prevented and lives could have been saved. 92% of the mass shootings since 2009 have been in gun free zones.
[/quote]

There is a legitimate income inequality problem in the United States

Humans are unequal in intelligence and work ethic, income inequality is a result of human nature. Holding guns to persons heads and demanding their wallets (in the form of taxation) isn't going to change human nature, it only makes you a thug and a robber.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Smuff said:
Yeah, I just don't get it. We're not allowed guns in the UK and we have very little gun crime.

Incorrect. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...ars-in-england-where-guns-are-banned-n1464528

..[G]un crime in England and Wales soared by 35% last year.
Criminals used handguns in 46% more offences, Home Office statistics revealed.
Firearms were used in 9,974 recorded crimes in the 12 months to last April, up from 7,362.
It was the fourth consecutive year to see a rise and there were more than 2,200 more gun crimes last year than the previous peak in 1993.

Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.
Once again, you are not anti-gun, you are very pro-gun, because you need guns to keep people disarmed. And we all know the police never abuse their power or murder innocent individuals.

Chary · Oct 4, 2015

Haloman800 said:
Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.

This.

Honestly, so long as Clinton, Trump, and Bush don't win, it's all good.

Haloman800 · Oct 4, 2015

Chary said:
This.

Honestly, so long as Clinton, Trump, and Bush don't win, it's all good.

If you support the 2nd amendment, you should support Donald Trump, he is an avid 2nd amendment supporter.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
Here's a snippet:

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.
The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

Lacius · Oct 4, 2015

Haloman800 said:
The Aurora, Colorado shooter James Holmes (Batman), drove past several movie theaters until he arrived at one that banned guns. If one person in the theater had a gun, the catastrophe could have been prevented and lives could have been saved. 92% of the mass shootings since 2009 have been in gun free zones.

I don't think I was talking about gun free zones.

Haloman800 said:
Humans are unequal in intelligence and work ethic, income inequality is a result of human nature. Holding guns to persons heads and demanding their wallets (in the form of taxation) isn't going to change human nature, it only makes you a thug and a robber.

Income inequality is a much more complex issue than you're making it out to be. To say all or most of the income inequality that exists is the product of differences in skill and work ethic is to be ignorant to the issues. In reality, social mobility has become more difficult over time due in part to policies and/or lack of policies.

In addition, with regard to taxation, liberals generally believe that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes if the rich are going to become rich in part because of tax-related policies that benefit them.

Haloman800 said:
Banning guns only keeps law abiding citizens disarmed. To use the USA as an example, there are 350 million privately owned guns, if you banned them, criminals will still get them, and citizens will be easy targets now that they are unable to defend themselves.
Once again, you are not anti-gun, you are very pro-gun, because you need guns to keep people disarmed. And we all know the police never abuse their power or murder innocent individuals.

If you're going to disingenuously frame the issue as banning guns, we can't have a conversation. As far as I'm aware, no one here is seriously talking about taking normal guns away from normal and responsible gun owners.

TotalInsanity4 · Oct 4, 2015

Etheboss said:
Too bad this is a USA orientated debate, I now have nothing to contribute (which maybe is for the better )

You should try to come up with a topic for the future and PM me

Haloman800 · Oct 4, 2015

Lacius said:
liberals generally believe that the rich should pay their fair share in taxes

The top 5% pays 60% in taxes, while the bottom 50% pays just 2%. The "rich" pay far more than their fair share. It's the "poor" who pay next to nothing.

As far as I'm aware, no one here is seriously talking about taking normal guns away from normal and responsible gun owners.

Smuff said:
But my vote would go to whoever promises to get rid of the guns.

Wrong again :^). Let's see if you're man enough to admit it.

Lacius said:
To start, he's a Republican.

Great ad hominem. Why not try responding without logical fallacies?

Etheboss · Oct 4, 2015

TotalInsanity4 said:
You should try to come up with a topic for the future and PM me

maybe i will, just for the fact you corrected my bad english, hehe..
BTW one thing i will say, Why only a republican and a democratic party... Whoever gets chosen is only chosen by about half the of the voters... that doesn't seem fair to me.

GhostLatte · Oct 4, 2015

I don't like any of them to be honest :rofl2:

TotalInsanity4 · Oct 4, 2015

Etheboss said:
maybe i will, just for the fact you corrected my bad english, hehe..
BTW one thing i will say, Why only a republican and a democratic party... Whoever gets chosen is only chosen by about half the of the voters... that doesn't seem fair to me.

To be honest that's why Bernie Sanders is caucused as a Democrat. He is actually an Independent, but knows that he would have no chance of winning if he didn't caucus for one of the two major sides (and he agrees more with Democratic policies that Republican)

Foxchild · Oct 4, 2015

Income inequality is a much more complex issue than you're making it out to be. To say all or most of the income inequality that exists is the product of differences in skill and work ethic is to be ignorant to the issues. In reality, social mobility has become more difficult over time due in part to policies and/or lack of policies.

Indeed. Whether or not their attempts are genuinely altruistic, both political parties are making this worse. Republican policies tend to favor the rich, to keep them in power. Democrat policies tend to incentify staying poor by making the hump to get out of poverty harder to get over (there comes a point where making more money harms you because you would lose your govt. benefits, so better to stay where you're at). Basically, Republicans help the rich stay rich, Dems help the poor stay poor, and both pull resources from whats left of the middle class.

Lacius · Oct 4, 2015

Haloman800 said:
The top 5% pays 60% in taxes, while the bottom 50% pays just 2%. The "rich" pay far more than their fair share. It's the "poor" who pay next to nothing.

We decided as a country long ago that it is fair to have the people who can afford to pay higher taxes pay more than those who can't. It would disproportionately hurt the poor if we had them pay the same tax rate as the rich because that percentage in taxes is much more valuable to lower earners than it is to higher earners. This is basic tax policy and isn't even terribly controversial in Republican circles.

Haloman800 said:
Wrong again :^). Let's see if you're man enough to admit it.

It was that comment that made me qualify my statement with normal guns from normal people and seriously consider. Let's not get overly nitpicky. I still don't think anyone here is seriously talking about taking away all guns, and regardless, those are not the policy positions being talked about.

Haloman800 said:
Great ad hominem. Why not try responding without logical fallacies?

It's not an ad hominem fallacy to cite someone's political party identification, which refers explicitly to one's policy positions, as a reason not to elect a specific candidate.

Foxchild said:
Indeed. Whether or not their attempts are genuinely altruistic, both political parties are making this worse. Republican policies tend to favor the rich, to keep them in power. Democrat policies tend to incentify staying poor by making the hump to get out of poverty harder to get over (there comes a point where making more money harms you because you would lose your govt. benefits, so better to stay where you're at). Basically, Republicans help the rich stay rich, Dems help the poor stay poor, and both pull resources from whats left of the middle class.

If you think Democratic policies incentivize people being poor and that lower earners generally and willfully stay poor, I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. Regardless of the government benefits you're talking about, they generally pale in comparison to making enough money to no longer qualify.

GBAtemp Debate Club: Presidential Candidates

Who do you think are the the top 5 Presidential hopefuls?

Hillary Clinton

Bernie Sanders

Joe Biden

Jim Webb

Martin O'Malley

Donald Trump

Ben Carson

Carly Fiorina

Marco Rubio

Jeb Bush

Ted Cruz

John Kasich

Bobby Jindal

Chris Christie

(Other not listed)

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

It was my destiny to be here; in the box.

Fossilized Gamer

Official LULWUT supporter

Well-Known Member

It was my destiny to be here; in the box.

a real gril

Well-Known Member

Fossilized Gamer

a real gril

Never sleeps

a real gril

Well-Known Member

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

a real gril

Official LULWUT supporter

GBAtemp's Official Van Master™

GBAtemp Supreme Overlord

Goomba Overlord

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum