The Republican Party's platform is overall superior to that of the Democratic Party

Family Years of research has shown convincingly that a loving, two-parent home gives children a considerable advantage in life – regardless of whether or not it is “traditional”. Gay couples who adopt can surely do a better job of providing a loving home for orphans than the government can [5]. Traditional marriage - like the kind the Obamas have, for example - needs no “protection”; everyone supports it. Gay families, however, are constantly under threat from the right, while Democrats are advocating the correct platform. I again won’t have time to spend much time talking about social programs, except to say that things like unemployment, disability support, and disaster support help all families to stay together when they fall on hard times, and are thus not a waste. Military Homosexual soldiers deserve exactly the same respect and appreciation that heterosexual soldiers do. Period. No more, and no less. The Right’s hostility to the gay men and women who defend our country is nothing short of shameful. Also, the United States is responsible for about 40% of the world’s overall military expenditure, far more than any other country, and more than the next ten countries combined, most of them allies [6]. There are no powerful totalitarian empires left. The weapons used to wage war against other nations are thus less in need than they once were. We do still need some battleships and submarines to stay on top, but not as many. Terrorism is the big threat today, and one generally doesn’t use submarines to beat terrorists. What you do need more of are things like drones and cyberdefense; lower cost and higher effectiveness security solutions. Taxes/Class Pro ought to finish a story before he starts to cheer at a happy ending. From his own Wikipedia source: “Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981–88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26% GDP in 1980 to 41% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase.” “Supporters [of Reaganomics] pointed to the drop in poverty by the end of his term to validate that the tax cuts did indeed trickle down to the poor; opponents noted that the rate quickly shot up even higher in the first year of his successor's term, implying that the full effect of Reagan's policies led to a net increase in poverty.” [7] Contrast this with the budget surplus left by Clinton - a hard won surplus which his Republican successor quickly squandered with the exact same strategy Republicans still advocate: tax cuts primarily given to the rich. What didn’t work for either Reagan or Bush is going to balance the budget? No, it won’t. I say again - pure fantasy. Energy Simple question: who is the country better off giving the support of subsidies and tax credits to – fledgling alternative/sustainable energy firms, or well established big oil? Democrats say the former, Republicans (their treasury filled with oil-stained donations) advocate the latter. Neither party plans to eliminate coal or oil outright, but why do those industries deserve special treatment, especially in light of the climate change argument which my opponent completely dropped? As it so happens, there have recently been massive advances in battery technology, and the cost to produce solar energy continues to drop about 7% each year [8] [9]. The days of fossil fuels are numbered. Why frack the environment more than we have to just to get a few more years of being screwed at the pump? 5) http://www.reuters.com... 6) http://en.wikipedia.org... 7) http://en.wikipedia.org... 8) http://popularlogistics.com... 9) http://www.ted.com...