Simulated Presidential Debate

We are in a crisis, that much is true. But the question remains: is anarchy the answer? In a world of chaos my opponent believes zero regulation, no governing bodies, and chaos are the way to fix the economy and our country. But this is insane. There would be no rule of law. No government to enforce contracts and prevent abuse. Both the rich and the poor would be at risk of destruction through reckless anti-governmental policy. His opinions are contradictory. He wants to prohibit gay marriage and abortion but also opposes government intervention. Aren't these positions contradictory? How would he enforce his opinions--which he puts so blatantly on his platform--without a government? His opinions are contradictory and it really proves the fact that anarchy is not the way to go forward. His own opinions require the existence of a government. I am not some regulatory hawk as explained by the anarchist candidate. I support going back to 1949 levels of regulation. Had we stayed at those levels, the economy would be huge, 3 times larger than today in fact. I agree that excessive regulation is bad--both the World Bank, George Mason Mercatus Center, and pretty much every economist agrees (http://mercatus.org...). But zero regulation is insane. The Glass-Steagal act is one of the acts which is required for any market economy. The repeal of this regulation led to the 2009 Financial Crisis (http://www.usnews.com...). I oppose regulation, which you wouldn't know if you relied upon his handouts. But the fact is I support smart regulation. Zero regulation leads to hardship, economic turmoil, and poverty. Excessive regulation leads to the same thing. Supporting moderate levels of regulation actually benefits the economy. It is a fact. If he characterizes my position as hawkish, he simply does not understand mainstream economic thought. I do--and I will drive this economy forward. Crime and punishment is essential for any presidential candidate. Arguable we need to pass shall-issue concealed carry laws. This allows citizens to defend themselves from each other and from the government. These laws reduce the crime rate significantly (http://www.guncite.com...). Allowing citizens to take matters into their own hands is how we begin to fix the problem. My opponent supports punishing criminals--again, how does he do this while supporting anarchy? This is self-contradictory. He doesn't even know where he stands. Should this man be president when he supports laws but opposes governments? How will they be enforced? How will abortion clinics be treated as murderers? Will the abortion patient be liable for execution, life in jail, etc.? When he clarifies his position it just leads to more questions, not less. I am simple. The death penalty is required to promote justice and deter crime. It is a clear statement, avoids question, and hits the problem directly. I oppose anarchism so this position is not contradictory. The fact is, my position makes sense. My opponent's doesn't. The case of John MacRae proves my point. He is a terrible human being and deserves execution. As does Miller. Note my opponent doges the gay marriage question. It is a statist position he has and he knows it. He is preventing people who love each other from having a life-long union. He is supporting stigma which leads to depression, suicide, and death. He should be ashamed. The Federal Reserve, unlike my opponent's anti government stance, must be preserved. They were successful in reducing unemployment by 1.5 percentage points in the last recession. Monetary stimulus which the Fed uses is costless, easy to reverse, and stimulates growth. I am willing to use all the tools in the toolbox to fix our country. My opponent wishes to strip away effective institutions in order to fufill political gain. This is unacceptable. I will lead to growth and prosperity with common sense measures. My opponent will stifle growth with fringe economic ideas. (http://www.federalreserve.gov...) He has yet to justify anarchism. 16kadams 2016.