Talk Elections

Since we're not holding formal debates this is where voters can ask the candidates questions, get to know the candidate better and the candidates can ask each other questions.


Created by request ;)

Thank You.  My first question is to Demrepdan.  What exactly is your stance on abortion?

I have a question for Supersoulty.

We have been at war since 9/11/01.  Afghanistan was the first battlefield, Iraq the second.  There's no doubt there will be more battles in other countries in the War on Terror, more appropriately known as World War III.

My question is, if you were president, what would your next action be in the War on Terror?  And are you open to sending U.S. troops to foreign soil to topple a terrorist regime without U.N. approval, ie. the Battle of Iraq?

Where do I stand on abortion? Well, I do believe I have made my stance on abortion quite clear. The person who SHOULD be asked where he TRULY stands on abortion is PD.

Here is my stance, as stated before. I support abortion in these cases.

   The mother of the child is raped. The child is a product of incest. The mother's life is in danger, and she will die if she has the child, thus risking the child's life as well. So why let TWO people die, the mother and the child, when you can save the mother? I will LISTEN to those people who think that abortion is ok if the doctor determines through genetics that the baby will have major birth defects. I will LISTEN to them, but as I feel right now, it is wrong. You should give the baby a chance at life no matter what disabilities it may have when it is born. You never know what may happen, what cures may be discovered tomorrow, that can better the baby’s life.  I am also willing to LISTEN to other reasons as to why a woman should have an abortion.
   ABOVE ALL, I do not support partial birth abortion, even if ANY of these aforementioned scenarios apply. Abortions should only take place in the early part of the pregnancy, perhaps the first trimester.

I am DISGUSTED in women who get an abortion simply because she got pregnant, and she uses it as a "birth control" method. If you had SEX with some "cute boy" you just met last night, and now you regret your mistake. TOO BAD! LIVE WITH IT! We learn from our mistakes! The GIRL who had unprotected sex should learn from her mistakes, and NOT the baby in her belly! She should take responsibility for her actions! Those are my feelings on abortion. And if elected, I will attempt to pass an "Abortion Reform" bill through congress. It would not get RID of abortion, but it would make the rules on getting an abortion more strict. Many of my rules stated above, would be integrated into the bill.

I'm not gonna write this down again. Go to the AFRNC board thread to look at my responses to your ads. THAT GOES FOR EVERYBODY! LOOK AT THE AFRNC BOARD THREAD TO SEE WHERE I STAND ON ABORTION! IT'S EVIL AND IT'S MURDER! IF YOU GET PREGNANT AND DON'T WANT THE BABY, TOUGH! YOU BROUGHT IT UPON YOURSELF! YOU SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY FOREVER! That's a brief summary of where I stand on abortion. Partial birth abortions are the worst. I would not allow those under any circumstance.

Be careful.

What do you mean?

Keep your cool.

Anyways, I would like to see what the candidates stance is on the space program. Where do you think we should go? When do you think we should go? Should establish colonies/spacestations on the moon?

I do not think we should establish space colonies anywhere. Earth gets my vote here. I'd like to keep things the way they are in that department, at least for now.

You are so inconsistent?
Why are you so adamantly against abortion, but not so if the mother was raped?
You're SO about the babies, but those babies are no different.
You seem to support the baby over the mother anyway, so why is that baby any different?  Why does that baby have any less right to live?

If I were president, I would continue the progress in the war on terror.  As president, I would seek to fund pro-democracy groups in Iran with the means of over-throwibg the government in Iran.  This assistance would come by means of weapons, cash and intel.  I believe that the world cannot advance into the 21st century while 1/6 of the world population is still in the 15th.

My next military actionin the war on terror would be against Syria.  Syria is a government similar to Iraqs in that it not likely to topple do to covert measures.  In doing this, I would also liberate Lebenon, which has been under Syrian occupation since the 80's.  I would wait until we have a constitution in Iraq, before going after Syria.

The UN has made itself irrelivant in the war on terror.  NATO is the future for this battle and thus I would ignore the UN and strive soley for NATO approval.  With the added addtions in Eastern Europe, this shouldn't be difficult.

I see slow, but certain pro-Democratic progress in Saudi Arabia, so I wouldn't move to take any action against them, pending the situation.

Ok, lets break this down.......
Is that a question?
The mother was violated. The mother did NOT want the sex, thus, did NOT want the pregnancy. And could you love a child of a man who raped you? I think you're missing my point as to WHY I'm against most aspects of abortion. The MAIN thing I hate about abortion, is when the mother just wants to get RID of the baby, after having purposefully had SEX with the man. When the mother uses it as a form of birth control. It's the lack of responsibility on the mother's part. When the mother is raped, she never asked for this responsibility in the first place.
WRONG. I'm more about the MOTHER'S than I am the baby. The mother's health. I don't view abortion as so much of a "murder" as others do. It's not like you're taking a baby from a cradle and KILLING it. But it is killing a human-being nontheless.
Again, I support the mother WAY over the unborn child. The baby is different, in my opinon, because it is an unborn child. A developing fetus. It may have a tiny heart beat, it may be a living thing, but the mother is more important. Until the baby can live OUTSIDE the mother on it's own, then it makes me view it as not SO bad when I think about it. The baby DEPENDS on the mother to live, and if the mother should die, then so will it.
You're attacking me as if I'm AGAINST abortion. I'm against certain ASPECTS of it. The main aspect is when the mother uses it as a form of BIRTH CONTROL. If I had a choice, to either BAN abortion ALL together, or accept all forms of abortion, except for partial birth abortions, I would choose to NOT ban abortions.

You say you'd ignore the U.N.  Does that mean you would take the U.S. out of the U.N. completely or stay as a member nation?

I think that in many ways NASA is wasting valuible tax dollrs that could be put elsewhere or given back in tax cuts.  If elected I would cut NASA funding by at least 5-10%.  No on space colonies.  Plain and simple.  If you look at our present situation, you can see that the "over-population" problem is blow way out of proportion.  Did you know that if you gave every family on Earth an acre worth of land, you could comfotibly house every person in the world in the state of Texas.  I'm not advocating that, but anyone who says that there is an over population problem in this world as another agenda in my oppinion.  It's not lack of resources that are cause poverty in other parts of the world, but corrupt governments.  But I digress.

I would also work on legislation that would require NASA to spend at least 5% of it's total budget cataloging and tracking near-Earth-asteriods.  May sound wierd, but I think that it should be done for the safety of humanity.

I think that NASA wastes alot of money.  Just take the example of the Mars orbiter/lander that crashed a few years back because they forgot to convert standard units into metric.  Come on.  I think that a budget cut could save money and in the end put NASA on alert that they need to be more efficient with tax-payer dollars.

I would opt to stay as a member nation, but rely on other channels (NATO) to get work done in the War on Terror.

I would have to agree with PD on this one. We need to invest MORE interest in our own EARTH than other parts of the Solar System. We should put the planet Earth, and US, first.
    However, I feel that ultimately we should research on colonization, and exploration of other worlds. The Earth will not last forever, in fact the Earth will inexorably last much longer than human-beings. Accordingly, in order to insure the survival of the human race, we may ultimately have to expand to other places. If I were elected President, I would not cease funds to the space program, nor would I cut their budgets. In fact I would probably try to increase their budget SLIGHTY. But the space program will not be my main concern. I will fund other things first before I would give more money to NASA. Space Exploration is a gradual process, we cannot achieve all goals over night. However, I vow not to slow down this process in any way whatsoever.
   What I will mostly be thinking about, is the planet Earth, and how to make mother Earth last as long as we can make her last.

I wouldn't CUT spending, but I probably won't increase it either. It IS a gradual process. Anyway, I would rather live here on Earth over any other planet or space system. I do agree with the research, though. It's nice to know those things.

Babies can't make decisions for themselves. The mothers can. Under my definition, you sound like a murderer.

I have to say I agree with you for the most part. Except, of course, I am a little more strict than you are. As I've said before, the only way an abortion will swing with me is if the mother is RAPED and BOTH her life AND the child's is in danger, 100%. If ONLY her life is in danger and the child's is NOT, then she will have to die and the child will get to live. I OPPOSE abortion in all other cases.

This question is for PD:

What is your oppinion of the wetfoot/dryfoot policy for Cuba immigrants?

This is a question for everyone:

What should we do with illegal aliens in the country? Should we make them legal? Should we deport them? Close off the boarder?

I hope all is okay.  Good luck with whatever's going on.

And the quest for a vice president continues....I think.  Wasn't Mr. Fresh supersoulty's VP?

We should deport them and close off the border.

I believe that we should seal of the boarder using the National Gaurd and the Reserves.  I this modern era of terrorism, we need to.  Plain and simple.  For those illegals who are already here, we need to deport them if they are caught.  I don't beleive in amnesty for illegals.  Once deported, they can apply for legal citizenship, but I want them out of here if they are illegal.

There is one exception.  I support the current policy with Cuba refugees.  I would make a few changes.  First, if we catch Cubans floating in boats on the ocean, i don't think they should be sent back.  They are just in their efforts to escape a dictatorship and they have no way to leave their island legally.  If we find them in the sea, we should take them into be screened and, upon conducting thourogh back round check, they should be relesed, with green cards.  All those who make it to land should be encouraged to under-go the same process.  Again, I make this exeception due to the circumstances of there government.

Although it is not key to the debate, it should also be noted that Cuban immigrants have the best record for finding jobs fast and keeping them of any immigrants.  Cuban immigrants also have, on average the best record for the least amount of time spent between applying for a green card and becoming citizens(I beleive that it is on average about 5 years).  Again, it is not key to the argument, but it does help it along.    

This question is for Nym90:
     
     What are your stances on further Space Exploration? Do you believe that there is life on Mars? People pondered this same question about the Moon before we landed on it, and weren't greeted by little green men.  Could the IRS allow Tax Payers to decide, on their forms they fill every year, whether or not they want some of their tax dollars to go toward further exploration of space. We are asked every year if we want $1 or so to go toward public funds for candidates. What are your thoughts on all this, Mr. President?

I am a strong supporter of space exploration. I feel that the quest for discovery and learning new things is one of the most important things that we can do as a people, and thus I am strongly supportive of scientific endeavors. Learning about other worlds also can help us to better understand our own. Nothing that we learn is ever wasted. It has been very well established that intelligent life of any sort cannot be in existence anywhere in our solar system, but it certainly is possible that some sort of simple single-celled organisms, such as resembling amoebas, may live on other planets. This would be a tremendous discovery if it were to be found, and thus I would support efforts to continue to find life on other planets. The $1 contribution towards public funds for presidential candidates does not affect the total amount of money that the taxpayer pays; if the taxpayer does not choose that option, then the $1 of taxes goes into the general fund instead. I would not support having this option available for space travel as I feel that legislators and appropriations committees can best make the decision about how our tax dollars can be spent, and if the people are upset with these decisions they can vote their members of Congress out of office.

I agree with everything he said.  If I were responding to the question, I would have said almost the same thing.

You're on the GOP thread, just in case you don't know... :)

CM did ask Nym90 on this thread.

Yes.  ;)  I was going to point this out, but decided against it.  Let them dig their own graves...

Front page on tomorrow's New York Times:

"Democratic candidates seen at Republican primary debate...."

I kid.

Lol, that's a cool idea, Democrats particpate in debate for Republican runners.

Unfortunately, there is no similar Democratic forum.

It's not hard to make one...

That said, it really doesn't matter that much.

We should NEVER close off the boarder to immigrants. I will continue to encourage legal immigrants to come to this country, I believe it helps the economy grow, and also helps improve our image as America. But I am opposed to making illegal aliens in this country LEGAL, simply because there are too many of them. We can't just ignore a problem, and say, "Well, there are too many of them, lets just make them ALL legal, and it'll save a lot of paper work."

If we allow illegals in the country, what comes next? Illegals taking JOBS from U.S. Citzen, where a man who doesn't even officially LIVE in the U.S. CAN get a job, but a man who has spent his entire life here and has worked hard here, CAN'T get a job.

Plus, if we allow illegals in this country, it may not be good in fighting terrorsim. Not all illegals may come from Mexico. A terrorist may come into this country and plan terrorist attacks, and there is no record of him in this country, because he is in this country illegally. How are we expected to fight hard against terrorism if we allow illegals in  this country, and let them attain a legal status.

If you want to come and live in this country, fine, I encourage you to come here, it's a great country to live. You should apply for U.S. citizenship. But if you come here, and we have NO record of you because you are illegally living here, then it is best that we find all illegals, and deport them back to their home country.

CNN News Flash:

Democratic senator Gustaf Lundgren to endorse Illinois senator Demrepdan in the GOP primary. More to follow later.... ;)