Presidential Debate

The debate will begin within the next 2 days, and will consist of however many rounds I deem necessary, with 3-4 questions proposed at a time.

This year's debate is going to be sexy, edgy, and scored on a point system. Each response will earn a point value of some kind based on its merit and eloquence, with various types of bonus points available - be it for first response, most concise response, most hateful response, etc. I will review the points awarded to any particular response if it is requested by either candidate, however they may be subject to a penalization for whining.

At the end, the person with the most points will be the winner, and therefore better than the loser, by whatever margin of points they won by.

Who wants to vote for a loser? Not me, at least.

I request that the meaningless drivel be removed from the thread by those that have such power.

The first round of questions. I suppose they should be on something boring like policy, but I'm going to David Frost this shit and start out hot!

Questions for Drew Hanna:

- You recently resigned your post as senator amidst a scandal involving your admitted manipulation of the system. Why should the people trust you?

- Your campaign speech speaks highly of current President Wachob and his policies, yet you were the driving force behind the impeachment of the President and the Chief Justice. You voted to remove the Chief Justice, then voted not to remove him even though no actions or apologies from Justice Gordon came in between. You sue senator Rubin out of Congress, then select him as your running mate, then remove him from the ticket and pick a new running mate. What are the voters supposed to think when they see all of this rampant flip-flopping?

- What makes you a better candidate than your opponent?

Questions for Alex Clifton:

- You have admitted to having been manipulated by Senator Hanna to impeach President Wachob and Justice Gordon, but that fact remains that you impeached them and later regretted the choice. How can the people trust you to act as a strong executive, and not be manipulated by other members of the government in the future?

- Senator Hanna's campaign has attacked you and your running mate, Senator Dohn, as being ineffective and inactive members of Congress. How do you refute these claims and defend the records of yourself and Senator Dohn, when it is fact that neither of you have authored a bill in a combined 10 years of service in Congress?

- What makes you a better candidate than your opponent?

First off, I would like to thank President Wachob for this opportunity.

So as for the first question posed: trust. Trust is something that I think I have earned over years of hard work and legislation. My actions that led to my resignation did indeed break trust, but I hope that Americans realize that my actions were in the pursuit of justice and democracy. Unethical as they may have been, to which I apologize, I must note that if anything there should be a new bond of trust formed one which acknowledges that I will do what I can to preserve constitutionality.

Regarding my high praise for President Wachob, I say this: I am a great believer in his policies and I think my record proves that I fight the same side he has, through his support of these policies he has done many a great and respectable thing, but as for the impeachment, unethical and extravagant use of power are wrong, and though I handled the situation wrong, it does constitute flip flopping. President Nixon did many wrongful deeds while in office, but his policies were amazing. I support his work full heartedly, but to deny that he did wrong is folly. The same is true of President Wachob and Chief Justice Gordon.

As for the former Representative Rubin, this is not flip-flopping this is correcting my campaign. Like the Democratic Party did in 1976, some candidates turn out to not be what you are looking for. This isn't flip flopping this is improving. I still maintain the highest respect for Congressman Rubin regardless of the fact that it would never have worked in the White House as originally thought.

Finally, why am I more suited for this job? Vice President Clifton, an amazing person as she is, is not nearly as effective and does not hold such the prestigious record I do within the government. While she has indeed served in various positions, that does appear to be all she has done. All I can say is that if I am elected action will be taken, I've done it before and I'll do it again. You can't say that about Vice President Clifton and Senator Dohn, because they have nothing to run with.

Thank you President Wachob and also to America for hearing me out.

Would that prestigious record include the domestic incident during World War III?

Thank you, President Wachob, for giving me a chance to defend myself.

Let me answer your first question. People can trust me as being a strong executive because I have changed. I have realised that being a pushover really, really sucks, and I'm not going to tolerate any of that crap anymore. People are welcome to give me suggestions, but it is ultimately up to me to help make this country a better place. I want to do what I want to do and I am not going to let others dictate orders to me. I'm actually running to help improve my assertiveness skills, so I'm not going to take any nonsense. When I decide to do things, you can be confident that it is ultimately what I want to do and not what anybody else has told me to do. I am still the same old me, promoting the same ideals. The only difference is that I am stronger this time and I will exercise my will to say "no" when I want to. (God, I feel so empowered at the moment.)

When it comes to our Senate records, I will admit that yes, it is true that we didn't author any bills. And yes, I know my excuse that I moved house, went to a different country and started college all within a very short span of time is pretty lame. Busyness in real life is no excuse for not serving my virtual constituents. Having said that, I still followed what was going on in the Senate to the best of my abilities. I might not have posted, but I still read bills and tried to get a sense of what was going on. Just because we never actually authored any bills doesn't mean that we don't want to change things. Ryan and I actually have great ideas for changing this country for the better that we've been keeping secret. We just feel that we'd be better changing the country from a higher, more public standpoint where the people can see and hear us more visibly (and audibly, I suppose).

I like Drew, I really do. He's a good Senator, he's a good person, he's effective with what he does. But I am different. I want to push the country away from corruption. I am back and I am assertive and I can say no and I'm just as effective as Drew. I will get work done. Drew, good person as he is, cannot say the same about his presidency because it doesn't necessarily mean that Congress will follow him. I will work with Congress to get my legislation passed and I will go to any means to get it done (aside from corruption, scandal, bribing -- been there, done that). I want to make this country a better and different place. Drew has exerted so much influence within the past ten years that if he is elected president, the country will remain the same. Do you really want that to happen, or do you want a fresh face? We will do things. I promise you that.

PS. Sorry this is so late -- had a world lit test this morning and an astronomy lecture last night. I suck at time management?

Time to score the argument.

Drew - Spoke well throughout his response, focused on his ability to act, referencing his record as proof. Quite impressive. 5 points.

Alex - Asking us to trust her to trust her, without much to back it up. Does not cite any specific policy goals despite claiming to have them ready for a potential victory. Not so believable, I'm afraid. 2 points.

And the bonuses!! Drew's response was shorter (+1) and he used the longest word of either candidate (+1) and he posted first (+1), unfortunately this landslide gets worse as ex-poofter Dohn's interruption will cost Alex a point (-1).

Adding up the totals, it's:
Drew Hanna - 8 points
Alex Clifton - 1 point

I must say, those responses were extremely UNsexy. Step it up, guys!! Next round of questions will follow, and perhaps we shall open something up for VPs as well, since ex-Poofter Dohn seems so eager to run his mouth.

This middle round of questions concerns foreign policy. These 3 questions are for both candidates to respond to.

- How would you evaluate the actions of the current administration during the conflict called World War 3? What would you have done differently?

- There is still no peace treaty agreed upon between the previously warring nations. What would you work for in a peace agreement and what do you believe are realistic goals for the treaty?

- In your opinion, should the United States be interventionist or isolationist?

The actions of the Wachob Administration were for the best of the nation overall in World War III. Unlike many neighboring countries, we did not immediately seek out and use nuclear missiles we kept our cool. However, I was greatly unimpressed with both how the war was handled domestically, as well as the failure to respond to the attack on Honolulu. With Honolulu, firm action needed to be taken, perhaps not a killing of innocents, but the destruction of something beloved by the Chinese. As for domestic affairs in the war, I completely and utterly state my opposition to the jailing of both Ryan Dohn and Max Lustig.

In regards to a peace treaty, we must be careful. While much of the world suffers, we cannot continue the suffering as done in the extreme during World War I. My suggestions would be to force the rebuilding of Honolulu, and for the Chinese to do, as President Wachob suggested, settle the deficit to the United States, whether by paying it in full, or ending the need for eventual payment.

In theory, the United States, as George Washington desired, should be isolationist, but the fact remains that the world is far different than anything Washington could ever imagine. We are one world now and what the world does they do together. Therefore, the United States must assist the world in a conflict if it is a threat to the planet. It is our duty, it is our right, not because we are the United States of America, but because we are a nation of the world and have the capability to defend it.

Am very sorry I haven't responded yet -- still in Nashville after going to the Sabres game last night -- have no time to respond to the debate questions -- will do so later today -- do not care if this loses me points -- many apologies. At least the Sabres won.

I am, by nature, a pacifist. I do not like war; I abhor it and try to avoid conflict. There are, however, times when things simply must be done. I think that the Wachob administration did the best it could given the circumstances they were facing during World War III. There are times when it is simply necessary to shut things down in order to get the job done. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus during the Civil War; look how that turned out. The Union was saved thanks to the Lincoln administration's clamping down on extremists who advised against reunifying the country. While I am normally a very pro-individual rights sort of perso, I felt that the Wachob administration handled what it was faced with a brave face. Not everybody knows how to deal with World War III.

I agree with Drew in that we can't simply blame the war on one party and leave them to do everything. As Hitler showed, that approach simply does not work. I would also call for compromise, having the Chinese help to rebuild Honolulu and South Korea while perhaps erasing some of the debt that China would probably owe to the US. (Perhaps this would actually make up for the imbalance of trade between China and the US... just saying.)

While I would love to think that the world doesn't want America poking its nose where it doesn't belong, it's simply not going to happen. As Woodrow Wilson once said, "It has never been natural, it has seldom been possible, in this country for learning to seek a place apart and hold aloof from affairs." The point is that while the US shouldn't go looking for trouble, so to speak, America is duty bond to help the world grow as a whole. America is the richest country on Earth, while other countreis have nothing. Shouldn't we get rid of this culture of excess and try to do something good for the world?

Ok, time to score. Drew's argument was ok, but not at all sexy, and he didn't quote anything or anyone cool. Drew gets e points.

Alex used a semi-colon, which gets a bonus of plus 1 for being intelligent, and a negative bonus deduction of 1 because it is snobby. The rest of her argument was mildly superior to Drew's, and she quoted Woodrow Wilson - which earns a plus 2 for the quote, but a -1 for picking such a sexist and racist president, and a -1 for picking such a difficult to understand quote. So all of those bonuses cancel out. I'd like to give the argument 4 points, but at the end she suggested that there is something wrong with American culture, which cannot be true because God loves us the most. So she gets only pi points.

So the score is
Drew - 8 + e
Alex - 1 + pi

The final round of questions will be posted soon, and will be worth more points than the previous posts have been. Hopefully

THE FINAL QUESTIONS:

Questions for Alex Clifton:
1. What SPECIFIC policy goals do you have for this country?

2. It is a widely believed rumor that you are a boy with long hair, and you yourself started this rumor. How can people trust you when you struggle with gender confusion? If you are a boy, why have you lied to us for so long? If you are a girl, how can you expect to be a good president?

3. Describe your campaign in ONE WORD.

Questions for Drew Hanna:
1. What SPECIFIC policy goals do you have for this country?

2. You have been quoted as saying "I would just like to let everyone know that I suck and that I'm a girl and I like ribbons in my hair and I want to kiss all the boys" How can the people trust you when you struggle with gender confusion, and why would they vote for such a sucky whore of a candidate?

3. Your campaign in ONE WORD:

My specific policy goals include an increase in new sources of energy, environmentally friendly legislation, a reduction to the capital gains tax, the end of caucuses, which I believe are unconstitutional, a treaty that favors the United States in World War III, lower taxes on businesses to prevent outsourcing, incentives for American businesses, and labor reform. I believe all of these things can be accomplished within the next two years.

As for the quote, Let me tell you a story. It was late and night and I got to my office when I found a pm from President Wachob. In the pm was a statement about some of the creepy things relating to me and that unless I admitted to it publicly I would be arrested. So I went to my lawyer and he was like, "Well talk to him and see if he is serious" and sure enough he had posted it as an executive order. Well I went back to the lawyer and he said "Well this is blackmail", but sadly, I gave in. I admitted to a false claim and I want to apologize to everyone for their confusion. I do not suck, I am not a girl, I do not like ribbons in my hair, and I don't want to kiss all the boys.

To finalize my campaign in one word is PROSPERITY

Thank you President Wachob for holding this debate and God Bless America.

I would like to make this country a safer, better place for all to live. This includes stricter gun control laws so kids do not end up with guns, passing legislation that limits how much college tuition can be (therefore allowing more people to achieve a higher education), the end of "don't ask, don't tell," and an overhaul of the welfare system so that those who need welfare recieve it but those who abuse welfare do not get a free ride. I would also like to pass legislation promoting and retaining music and arts education in schools, because students who play music and participate in other creative activities do better in school. I shall also push for tougher environmental laws, thus saving the polar bears before they all drown.

Lots of people struggle with gender confusion. It doesn't make them a bad person. It simply means that they are trapped. I, for one, am not actually gender confused. I am indeed a girl, although it may not be obvious when one looks at me for the first time. People can trust me to be a good president because I am trustworthy. Seriously, I don't have any ulterior motives for being president. I'm a pretty transparent person. All I want to do is help America and get back to the values of American culture that Tocqueville emphasised: community, equality, opportunity. I want to make America a place that everybody will love. I expect to be a good president because I am easy to trust.

My campaign is different.

Thank you, President Wachob and good luck to my opponent.

I'd like to thank the candidates for such quick responses. +1 to both of you!

Ok, Drew's answers -

1.) Good list of stuff, however if they can all be accomplished in two years, why elect you to a 4 year position?! 3 points anyway.
2.) Admitting to lying. Not good. Also does not make it clear that he is NOT gender confused. Hard to give more than 1 point for this.
3.) Prosperity - good word.

Alex's answers -

1.) Don't Ask, Don't Tell was repealed about 6 years ago, by me. Seeing as you are my VP I would've expected you to know that... not good. I suppose the rest of your answer was good, though. But for not knowing that DADT was gone... gotta give you just 1 point for it.

2.) Tocqueville mention = SEXY. This is what I've been waiting for, and it earns 10 points. Could've been worth more if the discussion of his American principles included all 5 or was in depth, but saying his name alone is impressive. As for addressing the question, you do not prove that women are capable of leaders (which the question implied) so I'll give you i points for that.

3.) Different.... different from the current administration? Like a Communist?! 0 points!

So the totals are:
Drew: 8 + e + 1 + 4 = 13 + e
Alex: 1 + pi + 1 + 11 =13 + pi

In a shocking comeback, ALEX WINS by approximately .4 !!!!

I concede the debate to Vice President Clifton, Congrats!

Thank you. Hopefully this debate will show who really has the leadership potential to rule the country...