SUPERHEROHYPE.COM PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION! - Republican Debate

[StorminNorman]

David Palmer is dead you sick bastard

But I saw him on an Allstate commercial just yesterday

 

[StorminNorman]

And what about diplomatic relations? If not then will you end diplomatic relations with Russia, China, Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Vietnam, Belarus, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, and many, many others?

Again - as I addressed earlier, I would not stop diplomatic relations any of these countries.

A leader meeting with the United States President, however, is an honor. It gives credibility to any leader. In exchange for that credibility, they must be willing to compensate.

 

[StorminNorman]

I will admit that I have no position on illegal immigrants and housing. This is a very complicated issue where a simple black and white solution just cannot be done.

I will not allow illegal immigrants living in government housing. But for housing in the private sector, I just do not know and I personally feel very conflicted about it.

On one hand, my opponent has a very valid point. But on the other, we just can't expect hundreds of thousands of people to be homeless and living on the streets. Housing is a necessity just like food and clothing.

Instead of housing, I will focus more on border security, employment, and making it easier for people to enter this country legally.

I do apologize if this answer is unsatisfactory to you.

It would not be hundreds of thousands if my immigration plan works. Again, almost all illegal immigrants in this country would of registered with the government and thus acquired a legal status in this country - they would not be effected by this (unless they commit a felony, fail to register or something of the sort). The innocent would not be punished here.

Those that enter this country after that period would have little motivation to do so. The risk of hiring illegal labor would not be worth the risk of a quarter million dollar fine and living would be hard to find. Take away the motivation and you take away much of the problem.

 

[hippie_hunter]

We do not have to antagonize, we can even work with Venezuela (and other countries), but yes - I would set conditions for ever meeting when meeting with countries that oppress their people.

Even if the will of the people allow and want such a thing like in the case of Venezuela?

The Conditions most of the countries you list are far less severe than those in Venezuela, though I would agree - they would require overlooking. I will not be so quick to buddy up with countries like Saudi Arabia than my predecessor was.

Last time I checked Hugo Chavez didn't kill his political opponents like Vladimir Putin and possibly Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan. He doesn't actively crush protests that result in the death of numerous lives like the Chinese government does. Or forcing children to serve in the military and raping women like the government of Myanmar. He hasn't committed genocide like in Darfur in Sudan. And he's nothing at all compared to Mugabe in Zimbabwe. His Venezuela is still a multi-party state unlike Eritrea.

At the same time we can not apply the same standard to countries such as China as we do with Venezuela simply because of the current environment. China has made many strides within the last 10-20 years in the area of human rights, they should be rewarded for those strides.

China is still pathetic in the area of human rights and to say that Venezuela's record is worse than China's is insulting to the Venezuelan people especially with the most recent protests just a few months ago in China.

Again - simply because I would not grant an audience with the President does not mean I would ignore or not try to establish diplomatic ties with these countries.

But establishing diplomatic ties is granting nations an audience.

It should also be noted that Chavez has tried to gain strength to oppose the United States - something no other country has listed. Chavez has spoken in support of Iran. He has threatened to use oil to "fight America" and is openly hostile to this country. That is unacceptable.

Have you considered that if we took a less antagonistic approach to Chavez perhaps he wouldn't be taking such an active stance against the United States? Have you considered the historical basis Chavez has against his struggle against the United States?

 

[hippie_hunter]

It is a hard issue to tackle. I completely understand your confliction. I just believe that if we stop those in housing sector from granting housing in the first place, it will help our cause. If illegals coming into the country know that they won't be able to find housing, it might provide a valuable deterrent.

A much more valuable deterrent would be the main source of why people emigrate to the United States illegally: taking away the jobs.

If you take away the jobs, many of these people aren't going to come to the United States and look for housing in the first place.

In regards to those already here, would you propose fines to those in the housing sector? (In the way that Norm has suggested? And that I completely agree with. Or do you believe it should be left alone?)

Right now I will leave it alone, but it will be something that has to be looked into.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Again - as I addressed earlier, I would not stop diplomatic relations any of these countries.

So you putting an unfair standard on Cuba and Venezuela but not onto nations that are worse?

A leader meeting with the United States President, however, is an honor. It gives credibility to any leader. In exchange for that credibility, they must be willing to compensate.

But diplomatic relations is on par with meeting with the President. Just like meeting with the President, having formal diplomatic relations with the United States is also an honor. Should nations like Cuba have to compensate just to have diplomatic relations as well?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Again - as I addressed earlier, I would not stop diplomatic relations any of these countries.

So you putting an unfair standard on Cuba and Venezuela but not onto nations that are worse?

A leader meeting with the United States President, however, is an honor. It gives credibility to any leader. In exchange for that credibility, they must be willing to compensate.

But diplomatic relations is on par with meeting with the President. Just like meeting with the President, having formal diplomatic relations with the United States is also an honor. Should nations like Cuba have to compensate just to have diplomatic relations as well?

 

[Marx]

Another important question that I have is in regards to Iraq. Candidate Hippie's current stance regarding withdraw is "unsure" while Candidate Norm is opposed to setting a timetable and wants to "negotiate" a permanent US base in Iraq with the Iraqi government.

However, the Iraqi government is continuing to press the US for a withdrawal and have made it clear that they want no permanent US bases left in their country upon withdrawal.

Shouldn't you respect the wishes of a sovereign nation? If not, why?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Another important question that I have is in regards to Iraq. Candidate Hippie's current stance regarding withdraw is "unsure" while Candidate Norm is opposed to setting a timetable and wants to "negotiate" a permanent US base in Iraq with the Iraqi government.

However, the Iraqi government is continuing to press the US for a withdrawal and have made it clear that they want no permanent US bases left in their country upon withdrawal.

Shouldn't you respect the wishes of a sovereign nation? If not, why?

I stated my stance before such a statement was made. I firmly believe that the United States should respect the wishes of the Iraqi government which was elected by the Iraqi people.

 

[Marx]

I stated my stance before such a statement was made. I firmly believe that the United States should respect the wishes of the Iraqi government which was elected by the Iraqi people.

Thank you for the clairfication Candidate Hippie! I greatly appreciate it!

 

[StorminNorman]

Even if the will of the people allow and want such a thing like in the case of Venezuela?

The President of the United States is not responsible to the will of the Venezuelan people.

I am not against working through diplomacy with Venezuela, I am against the President of the United States sitting down with a tyrant without conditions being met.

Last time I checked Hugo Chavez didn't kill his political opponents like Vladimir Putin and possibly Pervez Musharaff in Pakistan. He doesn't actively crush protests that result in the death of numerous lives like the Chinese government does. Or forcing children to serve in the military and raping women like the government of Myanmar. He hasn't committed genocide like in Darfur in Sudan. And he's nothing at all compared to Mugabe in Zimbabwe. His Venezuela is still a multi-party state unlike Eritrea.

The Chinese government has taken great strides since the attrocities of 1989. Musharaff has not been proven guilty of anything - it would be dangerous for the American President to assume the worse in such a situation. Putin is a dangerous man and is not a friend of this country, I would not sit down and meet with him without conditions set in place as well.

Again - not agreeing to have the United States President to sit down with foriegn leaders is not the same as cutting of diplomatic ties.

China is still pathetic in the area of human rights and to say that Venezuela's record is worse than China's is insulting to the Venezuelan people especially with the most recent protests just a few months ago in China.

Chavez has put restrictions on free speech in his country, he has removed any media outlets critical of his government and he has threatened this country.

You can not treat China the way you treat Venezuela. China is a world power arguably on the scale of America while Venezuela is not. Again, my position is that meeting with the leader of a World Super Power gives credibility to a world leader that he would not normally have, that is not the case with China.

But establishing diplomatic ties is granting nations an audience.

My Secretary of State would be open and free to meet with any foriegn leader or representative. I, as President, would be open to meet any World Leader as long as they meet conditions set in place for the meeting.

Have you considered that if we took a less antagonistic approach to Chavez perhaps he wouldn't be taking such an active stance against the United States? Have you considered the historical basis Chavez has against his struggle against the United States?

I do not believe America is responsible for Chavez's antoganism, however even if that was the case its impact on the present is minimal. Chavez is the man he is today - no matter what brought him to this point. He is a Communist Tyrant who has choosen to support Rogue Nations and oppress his people. I would not give him credibility by meeting with him unconditionably, just as I would not do so with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A much more valuable deterrent would be the main source of why people emigrate to the United States illegally: taking away the jobs.

Its a two pronged attack. Doing one does not mean we do not do the other. Plan plan covers both areas.

If you take away the jobs, many of these people aren't going to come to the United States and look for housing in the first place.

If you take away housing, even fewer will come to the country.

So you putting an unfair standard on Cuba and Venezuela but not onto nations that are worse?

As I have stated, I would open up economic and diplmatic relations with Cuba and end the current embargo on the country. I would continue diplomatic and economic relations with Venezuela. I simply will not meet with Chavez without conditions being met prior.

But diplomatic relations is on par with meeting with the President. Just like meeting with the President, having formal diplomatic relations with the United States is also an honor. Should nations like Cuba have to compensate just to have diplomatic relations as well?

At this point America having diplomatic relations with countries - especially in this hemosphere - is as much a honor for them as a necessity for us. Most deals between countries are not made between leaders face to face, but by representatives.

Yes, I would not meet with Raul Castro until he met certain pre set conditions - I am pleased, however, at the very small steps being made in Cuba.

So you putting an unfair standard on Cuba and Venezuela but not onto nations that are worse?

My policy of not meeting with opressive leaders without conditions would not be exclusive to Cuba and Venezuela. This is not a case of me picking on two countries. Many Middle Eastern Countries are not worthy of the American President's audience in this place in time. I would not meet with Robert Mugabe. These are simply examples.

But diplomatic relations is on par with meeting with the President. Just like meeting with the President, having formal diplomatic relations with the United States is also an honor. Should nations like Cuba have to compensate just to have diplomatic relations as well?

No - its not. The President's audience is a much a symbol as it is productive. There is prestige in having the American President meet the country of a leader with lesser world standing as a peer that simple relations do not all offer.

As I have stated repeatedly, I would support opening diplomatic and economic relations with Cuba - I would so so within my first 100 days in office.

Another important question that I have is in regards to Iraq. Candidate Hippie's current stance regarding withdraw is "unsure" while Candidate Norm is opposed to setting a timetable and wants to "negotiate" a permanent US base in Iraq with the Iraqi government.

However, the Iraqi government is continuing to press the US for a withdrawal and have made it clear that they want no permanent US bases left in their country upon withdrawal.

Shouldn't you respect the wishes of a sovereign nation? If not, why?

As I stated earlier, I would try to negotiate an agreement with the Iraqi government first. If no deal can be met, I would support the complete removal of American pressence in the country.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The President of the United States is not responsible to the will of the Venezuelan people.

Of course he isn't, but the government of the United States needs to respect the wishes of the Venezuelan people when it comes to Venezuela.

I am not against working through diplomacy with Venezuela, I am against the President of the United States sitting down with a tyrant without conditions being met.

But what's the difference between meeting with the President and meeting with the representative of the President?

The Chinese government has taken great strides since the attrocities of 1989.

Why don't you ask the Tibetans who were just recently killed.

Musharaff has not been proven guilty of anything - it would be dangerous for the American President to assume the worse in such a situation.

President Musharaff is one of the top suspects in Bhutto's murder. Even Bhutto herself thought that if she got killed, it would be by his government. And it is rather suspicious that she got killed when she threatened his power.

Putin is a dangerous man and is not a friend of this country, I would not sit down and meet with him without conditions set in place as well.

Impossible because Russia is a member of the G8 and the Security Council.

Again - not agreeing to have the United States President to sit down with foriegn leaders is not the same as cutting of diplomatic ties.

But just what is the difference between a representative of the President and the President himself? If you send representatives, doesn't that make the purpose of conditions completely pointless?

Chavez has put restrictions on free speech in his country, he has removed any media outlets critical of his government and he has threatened this country.

No denying that.

You can not treat China the way you treat Venezuela. China is a world power arguably on the scale of America while Venezuela is not. Again, my position is that meeting with the leader of a World Super Power gives credibility to a world leader that he would not normally have, that is not the case with China.

So you're saying that China is better than Venezuela?

My Secretary of State would be open and free to meet with any foriegn leader or representative. I, as President, would be open to meet any World Leader as long as they meet conditions set in place for the meeting.

But your conditions sound rather pointless if you just send someone in your place.

I do not believe America is responsible for Chavez's antoganism, however even if that was the case its impact on the present is minimal. Chavez is the man he is today - no matter what brought him to this point. He is a Communist Tyrant who has choosen to support Rogue Nations and oppress his people. I would not give him credibility by meeting with him unconditionably, just as I would not do so with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Chavez's himself is responsible for his antagonism, but he would not have as much clout as he does today if American foreign policy towards him were different.

If you take away housing, even fewer will come to the country.

No they will still come to this country filling up our streets and homeless shelters which is even worse.

 

[StorminNorman]

Of course he isn't, but the government of the United States needs to respect the wishes of the Venezuelan people when it comes to Venezuela.

I would make no move against the Venezuelan government - but that doesn't mean I am going to ignore the oppressive government of Hugo Chavez. Hitler was democratically elected as well, that doesn't mean the world should of let him slaughter jews.

But what's the difference between meeting with the President and meeting with the representative of the President?

Everything. Meeting with the President is a symbol as much as it is something substantive.

Why don't you ask the Tibetans who were just recently killed.

The Tibet conflict is incredibly tough to handle simply because of Chinese government because of their outrageous control over the media in the country - which makes it nearly impossible to ever definitively prove the atrocities.

The Tibetian protesters have acted unlawfully, certainly to no extent to of these accusations, but we can not blindly take action based on the word of one side of account either. We need to encourage the UN to intervene and to strongly pressure China into allowing an international body to overlook the accusations made here.

Again, however, you can not begin to compare China to Venezuela. Whether it is fair or not, China is an entirely different beast to deal with and must be handled with different gloves.

President Musharaff is one of the top suspects in Bhutto's murder. Even Bhutto herself thought that if she got killed, it would be by his government. And it is rather suspicious that she got killed when she threatened his power.

In America we believe in innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence that definitively connects Musharaff to Bhutto's murder currently. We can not judge countries based on assumption, we have seen the consequences of such actions.

Impossible because Russia is a member of the G8 and the Security Council.

Neither of which are the same as two foreign leaders agreeing to a meeting.

But just what is the difference between a representative of the President and the President himself? If you send representatives, doesn't that make the purpose of conditions completely pointless?

The President of the United States is more than just a position, its a figure. No. The point is to not punish a country, but to not give a rogue leader the prestige a Presidential audience includes.

Meeting with a Secretary of State is not the same as meeting with the President. Simple as that.

So you're saying that China is better than Venezuela?

I am saying China is different than Venezuela.

But your conditions sound rather pointless if you just send someone in your place.

Again, you simply underestimate the importance of a Presidential audience. It has nothing to do with diplomacy and everything to do with prestige and honor.

Chavez's himself is responsible for his antagonism, but he would not have as much clout as he does today if American foreign policy towards him were different.

Maybe, possibly, who knows. What if scenarios do nothing for the present environment and the Chavez of today, no matter the reason, is an enemy of this country. He has drawn that line in the sand.

No they will still come to this country filling up our streets and homeless shelters which is even worse.

Giving them no better a life than they had in Mexico, with no hope of a better one. Again - there is then no incentive to spend the money, the time and the energy.

 

[SentinelMind]

I'm so late...

1) To both candidates...

Do you support lifting federal ban for allowing states to drill for oil offshore? Do you support drilling in ANWR?

2)

What will you guys do to slow down inflation?


3)

Hippie, you said you admire justices like Sandra Day O'Connor. One criticism I have is while I agree she's a moderate and in a sense more "practical", I think she spends to much time trying to make legislative rationale for constitutional issues. What type of approach do you think Justices should take in interpreting law? Stormin can jump in as well.

4)

Rate these Supreme Court Justices from best/most qualified to worst/least qualified. You can give reasons if want..


Rehnquist
Roberts
Kennedy
Alito
Scalia
Souter
Thurgood Marshall

5)

Both of you say that Roe v Wade should not be overturned. In three sentences, why do you believe a federal mandate to ban abortion is consistent with the US Constitution?

6)

What will you do to Iran and North Korea?

7)

What will you do with Social Security?

 

[hippie_hunter]

Do you support lifting federal ban for allowing states to drill for oil offshore? Do you support drilling in ANWR?

No I do not support further drilling. Instead of fulfilling our addiction to petroleum and harming the environment, we need to find alternative methods to fuel our need for energy.

What will you guys do to slow down inflation?

We need to take better control of our spending and print less money. Instead of pissing away our money in rebuilding Iraq, trying to set up democracy in Cuba, and whatnot. A huge reason why we have inflation is because we are spending money that we just don't have.

Hippie, you said you admire justices like Sandra Day O'Connor. One criticism I have is while I agree she's a moderate and in a sense more "practical", I think she spends to much time trying to make legislative rationale for constitutional issues. What type of approach do you think Justices should take in interpreting law? Stormin can jump in as well.

I think that we need justices who will apply stricter judgments towards the Constitution. The reason why I put Sandra Day O'Connor as the one I admire is because she put aside her political affiliation to actually deliver an interpretation to the Constitution.

If we combine her ability to judge along with that of a person who sees the Constitution more as it is, I think we'd have the perfect justice.

Rate these Supreme Court Justices from best/most qualified to worst/least qualified. You can give reasons if want..


Rehnquist
Roberts
Kennedy
Alito
Scalia
Souter
Thurgood Marshall

I personally don't like the current make-up of the Supreme Court. I think that they are guided more by their personal political beliefs instead of actually interpreting the Constitution.

Both of you say that Roe v Wade should not be overturned. In three sentences, why do you believe a federal mandate to ban abortion is consistent with the US Constitution?

I do not believe a federal mandate to ban abortion is consistent with the US Constitution. Abortion is not covered in the Constitution. Abortion laws for the most part should be left up to the states as long as they don't completely ban abortion and put up unreasonable restrictions.

What will you do to Iran and North Korea?

My administration will meet with Iran and North Korea with conditions.

Iran needs to put a very brief temporary halt to their nuclear program and allow US inspectors full access in to see if they have a military or civilian nuclear program. If it is a civilian program then there is no need to deny Iran the ability to create nuclear power, they have the right to do so. However a joint US/IAEA inspection team should remain in Iran to ensure that it stays as a civilian program. If their program is a military one then it will have to be put at an end.

As for North Korea, we need to continue the six party talks with China, South Korea, Russia, and Japan with a stronger American presence to ensure that North Korea is put in it's place whenever it acts up

What will you do with Social Security?

As much as it is painful to say, Social Security is a relic of the New Deal. It was designed at a time where most people who received it were disabled people and most people were dead before they turned 65. Now these days people are living up to their 70's and 80's and our generation is going to be like a Highlander generation. Social Security was not designed with the modern day in mind.

Social Security needs to be heavily reformed or gotten rid of because we cannot afford it with the way it is designed today.

 

[StorminNorman]

I
1) Do you support lifting federal ban for allowing states to drill for oil offshore? Do you support drilling in ANWR?

Yes. I fully support opening domestic drilling. We will still need oil for at least the next decade, we might as well get as much as we can from our own backyard during that time.

2) What will you guys do to slow down inflation?

The first thing required is to start immediately lowering our trade deficits. With the War in Iraq quickly reaching its end, we should be able to see a drastic cut in war funding.

I would also take steps proposed by Senator McCain in regards to cutting earmarks in budgets. I would veto every bill that includes pork belly projects.

I support plans proposed by J ManSpice in regards to condensing government positions.

There is a lot of tax payer money that is being ill used in Washington. With a strong voice and an even stronger veto I will force Washington to learn how to budget.

3)Hippie, you said you admire justices like Sandra Day O'Connor. One criticism I have is while I agree she's a moderate and in a sense more "practical", I think she spends to much time trying to make legislative rationale for constitutional issues. What type of approach do you think Justices should take in interpreting law? Stormin can jump in as well.

I strongly oppose any sort of Judicial Activism. A judge's job is not to create law, but to interpret the constitution. If they want that power, they need to run for office.

4)

Rate these Supreme Court Justices from best/most qualified to worst/least qualified. You can give reasons if want..


Rehnquist
Roberts
Kennedy
Alito
Scalia
Souter
Thurgood Marshall

1. Rennquist a true legend of the Supreme Court.
2. Scalia - one of the greatest writers in Supreme Court history and a personal favorite of mine.
3. Roberts - I believe he will be among the greatest justices in Supreme Court history, however he does not have the record yet to warrant it.
4.Kennedy - a wild card certainly he has shown to split ideologies which is something I respect.
5. Alito - He has yet to do to much to warrant him being placed much higher. Even though Roberts has similar experience, I feel that Roberts is a more qualified justice and his position also helps him here.
6. Marshall - his refusing to accept rulings such as Gregg vs. Georgia shows that he placed his own ideologies above legal precedent and the Constitution.
7. Souter - among the most activist judges in the history of the Supreme Court.

5) Both of you say that Roe v Wade should not be overturned. In three sentences, why do you believe a federal mandate to ban abortion is consistent with the US Constitution?

My feelings on Roe v. Wade are very very hard and conflicted. I believe the ruling was flawed, while I support the federal legislation of the practice of abortion I find the actual case ruling to be improper.

I do not support its overturn simply out of fear of the can of worms that would be open.

6) What will you do to Iran and North Korea?

I will continue along the path of set for North Korea the Bush administration, I believe, has successfully laid already.

Iran is a true danger to this world, but we must not act too harshly. Our country is (in many ways) not at all ready for another war, plus at this point our economy could not bare it.

What I want to see in Iran is a revolution from its people - I would try to stimulate this by hurting Iranian economy through tough economic sanctions put in place by not only this country, but all allies of this country. Iran is a global threat, it must be dealt with by all global leaders.

7) What will you do with Social Security?

hunter is correct in that Social Security is past its prime.

I support continuing Social Security benefits as they stand now to everyone who is currently receiving them, or would of received them in the next five years.

After that - I want to see the system be privatized. Allow the worker to decide where his Social Security money should be placed, which bonds and investments to make. They have earned that right, the Government has proved to not be up to that task for them.

 

[SentinelMind]

thanks Hippie and Stormin for answering my questions....and excusing my dyslexia in question 5....good answers...good luck to both..and off to vote .