I'm sorry my opponent has chosen to forfeit the first round.
I Argument: Constitutional failure
I.a Taking the contender position, I will first assert that constitutionally, Bernie Sanders not only will not make a better President, but cannot make a better President than Donald Trump. Here’s why:
I.a.1 The oath of office of the President, the only oath to be constitutionally documented, declares:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."[1] I.a.2 As an avowed Socialist [let’s not be deceived by his preferred appellation “Democratic Socialist” because all that means is that
“both the economy and society should be run democratically – to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few…”[2] What Sanders really believes is that
“Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of good [i.e., making money] in a society.”[3] Sanders is wrong by either description. Bernie Sanders, as a Socialist, is a contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.
I.a.3
“Both socialism and communism are essentially economic philosophies advocating public rather than private ownership, especially of the means of production, distribution and exchange of good [i.e., making money] in a society.”[4] However, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who published
The Communist Manifestoin 1848 Germany, quoted from just above, held that
“…socialism [is] the first, necessary phase on the way to communism. Marx and Engels themselves didn’t consistently clearly differentiate communism from socialism, which helped ensure lasting confusion between the two terms.”[5] It is claimed that under socialism, individuals still own property, but “industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.”
[6] I.a.4 By contrast, the U.S. Constitution, while giving power to Congress to
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,”according to the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, clause 3 [and see also the balance of Section 8], ownership of industry is in the hands of the people, privately [that is, not communally] by corporations having individuals owning stock.
I.a.5 I challenge, therefore, Bernie Sanders’ ability, if he were elected President of the United States, to “
faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and… to the best of [his]
Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," which nation is founded on a free-market economy of private [as opposed to government] individually-own industries with allowance of ownership by other individuals by way of investment in publicly-traded stock, as noted in I.a.4. By this means, the American economic system allows anyone with the will, and the means, to own and profit from their investment according to their
want.Whereas socialism/communism
“controls all aspects of economic production, and the public receives a portion based on what they need.”[7] What they need, and have under the free-market system, is liberty, is to choose to engage in such investment, or not. Socialism, even ‘Democratic’ Socialism, offers no such liberty by its own definition [see reference [4]].
II Argument: Socialism failures II.a Whereas the United States of America has survived as a free-market economic system for 230 years and counting, there is no socialist economic system in the world that has survived longer than did the USSR’s 74 years [1917 to 1991]
[8], and the typical socialist system survives about 40 years before economic collapse.
[9] That is not an exemplary result for a presidency espousing a failed system when a better system has endured longer by a factor of 575%.
II.b Within the system of socialism are the seeds of its failure. Some opponents of a free-market argue, and my opponent may well argue the point in rebuttal, that the same accusation may be hurled at the free-market system. However, there is a solid rebuttal against this claim: The free market does not claim there is a limit to the money supply. In fact, it claims the opposite. A free market economy is one in which
“there is unobstructed competition”and lack of
“coercive restrictions in economic activity.”[10] II.b.1Whereas, Bernie Sanders rejects this approach. Example:
“The Green New Deal: The climate crisis is not only the single greatest challenge facing our country; it is also our single greatest opportunity to build a more just and equitable future, but we must act immediately.”[11] From the Green New Deal proposal itself, we read:
“The transition to 100% clean energy will foster democratic control of our energy system, rather than maximizing profits for energy corporations, banks and hedge funds.”[12] Yes, Sanders conveniently ignores the maximized profits for individual investors, as well. Further, I challenge any socialist/greenie to tell me which of every single green energy turbine on earth [wind, solar, hydro, tidal, geothermal, biomass, or nuclear for that matter] does
not employ petroleum products, of which we must “act now” to eradicate to achieve net-zero emissions of GHGs, in the lubrication and fabrication of its plastic parts.
II.b.2 Second example: The Green New Deal proposal requires,
“Create a Commission for Economic Democracy [note that particular description]
to provide publicity, training, education, and direct financing for cooperative development and for democratic reforms to make government agencies, private associations, and business enterprises more participatory. We will strengthen democracy via participatory budgeting and institutions that encourage local initiative and democratic decision-making.”Bernie Sanders embraces this proposal, which opposes the constitutionally guaranteed operation of private industry [Article I, section 8, clause 3
“To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States…”]. To
“regulate,” not to
“participate” in it, such as in
“participatory budgeting.” Or do we re-define what the Constitution declares emphatically just so Bernie Sanders can be constitutional? That would require a passed-by-Congress and ratified-by-States amendment to the Constitution. Sanders better get cracking. The typical constitutional amendment requires an aggregated average of seven years to reach ratification, according to an accounting of the duration of the 27 amendments efforts from proposal to ratification, not including Amendment XXVII, requiring 203 years to ratify.
[13]
For just these reasons, [1] an inability to preserve, protect, ad defend the Constitution as written, and [2] due to the failure of socialism to adhere to the Constitution as written, Bernie Sanders would not, aqnd cannot be a better President than president Trump.
[7] ibid
[13] The Constitution of the United States
Thanks for voting
Thanks for voting.
Thanks for voting
I've already been to bernie.com [ref [11] in first round. It won't be the last, even if Pro abdicates the debate. The pick of Pocawannapotus is a telling sign.
Easy win for con. Just go here for Bernie's policies: https://berniesanders.com/issues/ and show how several of them damage society in the long run.
What do you mean by R3 closing?