4th DDO Census Debate: Trump v Clinton

Leadership TrumpsMy opponent notes Trump had previously praised the Clintons. This is a bit of a silly claim - the entirety of Trump's praise for them came when Hillary was a Senator from New York, Trump's home state. Trump, being a businessman, needed to play both sides. Why alienate a Senator who is the wife of a former President? Unfortunately, this is the sort of dirty politics the Clintons run. This is the sort of politics Trump seeks to end. My opponent also notes several achievements Clinton had as Senator. These seem like good ideas, I'm not going to dispute that. But to argue Trump fails in supporting the military is silly. Rather than wasting time debating a bunch of empty suits, Trump held a fundraiser to raise $5.6 million for veterans. [1] It is no surprise military voters prefer Trump to Clinton by a margin of 15 points and he holds a favorable approval rating among military members and households. [2]I'm a bit confused by the claim Hillary helped pass the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act was never implemented. It did not pass. He also criticizes Trump's immigration plan as being a bad signal to legal immigrants. How so? How is fair for illegal immigrants to instantly become citizens, but for legal immigrants such as Trump's mother and wife to wait years or decades to become citizens? Trump notices this unfairness and wants to fix it - Hillary does not. My opponent also notes Hillary helped broker a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel. This is a very, very low bar to clear. Israel and Hamas have continued sporadic attacks for years since then. Trump seeks a lasting peace in the region, and who better to negotiate it than the best negotiator on the planet? To begin my rebuttals, I'd like to note my opponent's rebuttals only very rarely respond to my points. Because of this, a traditional response is difficult. I hope my opponent will use his next roun to get into policy specifics, such as the benefits of Trump's tax plan or the harm caused by free trade deals. EconomicMy opponent argues tariffs on China and Mexico would harm American consumers, especially poor ones. This is true, but it would also hurt China and Mexico worse. The proposed tariffs are not policies - they are negotiating positions. Unless Mexico and China act fairly, they will be treated as economic enemies. Mexico and China, who rely on US purchases of their exports, will not risk losing the US market and will comply with demands. Contrast this pretty solid position with Hillary, who praised the TPP as the "gold standard" of trade deals before deciding to oppose it for political reasons. [3] Trump saying Democrats tend to run the economy better isn't a problem either - unlike Hillary, he's willing to cross party lines and work with the other side, and recognize when they do accomplish things. Foreign policyMy opponent argues Trump supported the Iraq war. This is misleading at best. Trump gave a few comments along the lines of "sure, I guess", but noted the job should have been finished during the Gulf War. During the early stages of invasion - which were undoubtably the best periods of the war - Trump was more optimistic. But he quickly realized the war would be bad well before many others. [4] Contrast this with Hillary, who voted for invasion and then attempted to duck the blame when it backfired. My opponent also attempts to defend the failed Iran Deal. While she claims it helped keep them from a nuke, that's silly. It awarded Iran over $55 billion to fund it's terrorist regime and nuclear program. [5] If that's a success, I don't know what failure is. It is also an outright lie to claim Trump supported the Iran Deal. He did not. [6] In 2011 - well before the 2015 Iran Deal - he supported negotiating with Iran's then-President. His negotiation plan? Threaten war if Iran didn't stop developing nukes. That's far, far different from the 2011 deal. To say Trump supported the Iran Deal negotiated in 2015 by John Kerry is a lie. Point blank. My opponent also argues Benghazi isn't a problem anymore. Like Hillary, he thinks at this point it doesn't matter. That's wrong. The Benghazi scandal revealed her illegal use of a private email. It also revealed her early acceptance of the attacks as terrorism, despite her later claims it was just a reaction to a youtube video. [7]CorruptionMy opponent dismisses many of these scandals by claiming they only apply to Bill. Considering Hillary has said Bill will have a big role in her administration on the economic front, it is entirely fair to bring them up. He tries to defend Hillary's defense of a child rapist by claiming she did her job. That's true. But it's one thing to do your job, another to laugh at the victim and accuse her of lying. This woman - who we know was raped by this man - had her life ruined by Hillary Clinton. [8] He tries to defend Hillary's link to communist Saul Alinsky by arguing Obama was linked to him too. This is maybe the worst excuse I've ever heard. He then tries to pivot to Trump's business bankrupcies, but it's not very effective. While it is true Trump has failed in some businesses, that is what happens when you are a businessman - you win some and lose some. And, being worth over $10 billion, he's certainly won far more than he's lost. JudgesFinally, on judges my opponent argues bizzarrely that because Congress won't confirm Obama's SCOTUS pick, Trump can't be trusted to appoint judges. That's silly. Congress is not run by Trump. Trump does not run Congress, but even if he did stalling a nomination is a perfectly legitimate strategy. The Democrats stalled many judges under Bush. My opponent never contests that Hillary's justices would strip our constitutional right to keep and bear arms or push a far-left agenda. What does that say about his case here? References1. . http://www.politifact.com...2. . http://thehill.com...3. . http://www.cnn.com...4. . http://www.factcheck.org...5. . https://www.washingtonpost.com...6. . http://dailycaller.com...7. . http://www.theatlantic.com...8. . http://www.frontpagemag.com...