CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Would you support Donald Trump for President?
(CNN)Donald Trump has a new reality show: the 2016 presidential election.
Boastful, ranting, unfiltered and breaking every single rule of politics, The Donald announced his bid for the presidency on Tuesday with the indignation of someone who is mad and not going to take it anymore.
The bombastic billionaire, who hosts the NBC reality show "The Apprentice," provided his audience with the self-parody that many have come to expect along with flashes of substance that could have an unexpected impact on the race. He vowed to take on China and ISIS but also said he would build a great wall to stop Mexico from dumping "rapists" on U.S. soil, questioned the intellect of Jeb Bush, branded U.S. leaders as "stupid" and lamented that "the American dream is dead." "We need somebody that literally will take this country and make it great again," Trump said. "I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created."
Trump's rationale for a White House race is that, at least in his own mind, he is wealthier and more successful than anyone else. "I'm really rich -- that's the kind of mindset, that's the kind of thinking you need for this country," he said. "Somebody said, 'Oh, that's crass.' It's not crass.'" Read the rest here at CNN
He has filed bankruptcy four times and had a show called "you're fired" and you think he'd make a good president? Jeez! What a way to show your ignorance.
You woud vote for the same idiots who have run our debt up to 18 TRILLION! Can you even grasp what ignorance actually is? We need a real change in Government. We need a business man who can cut waste and fire inept Government programs and people such as those in the IRS!
We know all about the politicians who go to Washington and for you to keep electing them makes you what? Time to try something else and give it a try. He could never do any worse!
Everyone is talking about bringing jobs back. He's the only one not talking about a plan to do so. He's all empty, superlative rhetoric, with the exception of immigration, where he's just off the map.
He seems better than many on the right, I'll give you that, I would rather Donald Trump be President than Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Ben Carson, and a few others... But I really think Marco Rubio or Rand Paul would make a better fit for the oval office.
Can you point to any way that Obama "specifically" has divided our country in any unique (as in unique to him, not something that everyone is doing) way?
Not only Obama but the entire Democrat party are the great dividers.
Tell me what it does to race relations in this nation when the Left race bates every white on black killing but hardly ever mentions Black on white or Black on Black killings. This race bating of cops aganst Blacks is pure politics making sure the Democrat party keeps the stranglehold on te Black vote. It divides the nation!
Obama and the Democrat party CONSTANTLY play the class warfare game pitting Americans against Americans based on your income.
Whether it be gun control, Gay marriage, transgender, abortion, welfare, etc. the Democrat party pits Conservatives and the GOP against women, Gays, Blacks, poor people, illegal immigrants, old people, etc. which is purely designed to divide people into classes so they will vote for Democrats.
For you to not understand the great dividers is smply amazing. The Liberal media is doing a bang up job on people's thinking.
Alright whatever, he has the same beliefs as an extremely liberal Democrat. Plus, he's running for the Democratic nomination so you can't say that he's completely independent or else he wouldn't run under a different party.
The point is, he is gaining a lot of support in the polls because Democrats seem to be leaning towards a more progressive, socialist track. Whether this movement is spurred by a candidate that calls himself a Democrat or not is of little consequence.
Alright whatever, he has the same beliefs as an extremely liberal Democrat.
Where is your evidence of that?
Plus, he's running for the Democratic nomination so you can't say that he's completely independent or else he wouldn't run under a different party.
He has already said why he is doing that: Because even though he isn't a Democratic, it makes no sense to run as an independent if you want any chance of actually being a part of the electoral process. This isn't the first time something like this is happening.
The point is, he is gaining a lot of support in the polls because Democrats seem to be leaning towards a more progressive, socialist track
The most gracious polls give him barely 1/5 of the party. That's it.
He espouses progressive ideas. Raising the minimum wage, more social freedom, spending much more on public education, taking Obamacare further, raise taxes on wealthy, etc.
He has already said why he is doing that: Because even though he isn't a Democratic, it makes no sense to run as an independent if you want any chance of actually being a part of the electoral process. This isn't the first time something like this is happening.
Right and my point is he is choosing to associate with the Democratic Party, and for him to win the Democratic nomination, I hold that it would not be inequitable to declare that socialists are taking over the Democratic Party.
The most gracious polls give him barely 1/5 of the party. That's it.
At this early stage, trends of candidate polling certainly bear more importance than current standing and we can agree that Sanders has risen quite a bit within a couple months.
So what? "Progressive" is a vague term that encompasses many ideologies on the left and the right. He happens to most closely resemble a Social Democrat akin to those of the Scandinavian Social Democracies, but because people in the U.S. don't like nuance when it comes to politics, he is called and identifies as a Socialist.
Right and my point is he is choosing to associate with the Democratic Party, and for him to win the Democratic nomination, I hold that it would not be inequitable to declare that socialists are taking over the Democratic Party.
He isn't going to win, and that would simply prove that the Democratic Party preferred one "socialist" over Hillary Clinton, which isn't saying much.
At this early stage, trends of candidate polling certainly bear more importance than current standing and we can agree that Sanders has risen quite a bit within a couple months.
Which is meaningless. The trends rise and fall with the winds.
Well, it's a little bit like this. If I'm a Jew but I go to Catholic mass every week, I'm still a Jew but I obviously associate and identify with Catholics to some degree.
"Progressive" is a vague term that encompasses many ideologies on the left and the right. He happens to most closely resemble a Social Democrat akin to those of the Scandinavian Social Democracies, but because people in the U.S. don't like nuance when it comes to politics, he is called and identifies as a Socialist.
Right, but context easily demonstrates what I mean when I'm using it. I understand that, but the fact is he mostly agrees with Democratic policies and has decided to run as a Democrat.
He isn't going to win, and that would simply prove that the Democratic Party preferred one "socialist" over Hillary Clinton, which isn't saying much.
I wouldn't be so quick to say that. I think that's saying a lot. Clinton has been an extremely popular candidate with the Democrats for a long time so for someone to come out of nowhere to defeat her would be unprecedented.
Which is meaningless. The trends rise and fall with the winds.
Of course not. Large trends mean quite a bit. Look at the progression of polls when Obama beat Hillary for the 2008 Democratic nominee.
Troy, you are totally wasting your time if you think you will ever get this guy Generic to admit the simple truthful statements you make. You would be better off debating a fence post. I simply ban him when ever he starts his ludicrous denials of simple obvious common sense truth.
You are insane. You are utterly incapable of understand that if someone is disagreeing with you, it is because they simply disagree with you. You are utterly incapable of debating, and utterly incapable of handling dissenting opinion.
I wouldn't necessarily call it invading, but yes, he would be doing something of the sort. But even if he won, that wouldn't prove that "socialists" are invading the party, that would simply prove that one "Socialist" (except not really as he is actually a Social Democratic) is more popular amongst the left than Hillary.
Not only Obama but the entire Democrat party are the great dividers.
Tell me what it does to race relations in this nation when the Left race bates every white on black killing but hardly ever mentions Black on white or Black on Black killings. This race bating of cops aganst Blacks is pure politics making sure the Democrat party keeps the stranglehold on te Black vote. It divides the nation!
Obama and the Democrat party CONSTANTLY play the class warfare game pitting Americans against Americans based on your income.
Whether it be gun control, Gay marriage, transgender, abortion, welfare, etc. the Democrat party pits Conservatives and the GOP against women, Gays, Blacks, poor people, illegal immigrants, old people, etc. which is purely designed to divide people into classes so they will vote for Democrats.
For you to not understand the great dividers is smply amazing. The Liberal media is doing a bang up job on people's thinking.
I would vote for Trump over any Democrat. There are plenty of good Republicn candidates who I would vote for if they get the nomination. The entire GOP field makes the Democrats running look like total fools.
"First things first: Donald Trump has filed for corporate bankruptcy four times, in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. All of these bankruptcies were connected to over-leveraged casino and hotel properties in Atlantic City, all of which are now operated under the banner of Trump Entertainment Resorts.Apr 29, 2011
Fourth Time's A Charm: How Donald Trump Made" ... - Forbes
Can the USA survive Trump's bankruptcy record without the aid of federal assistance? By the way, Who bails out the Federal Government?
The Federal Reserve and the banks bail out the government. The Fed(Private bank) is the one who prints the money, this should be common knowledge. They are not effected by the freedom of information act because it is a private establishment. Hints why no audits and crazy printing of money.
Federal Reserve is not actually a private bank. It has both private and public departments. Also, most private banks aren't run by "governors" appointed by the government. It also does not print money. The Fed controls the market. The Treasury makes the cheddar.
For a conspiracy theorist who distrusts the government, you sure don't know much about it.
Asks for an audit through the freedom of information act. Not received because it is not a government establishment. "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." From Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
Asks for an audit through the freedom of information act. Not received because it is not a government establishment. "Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks, and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Reserve Banks are not federal instrumentalities for purposes of the FTCA, but are independent, privately owned and locally controlled corporations." From Lewis v. United States, 680 F.2d 1239 (1982)
FTCA is not the freedom of information act. The case you cited had nothing to do with freedom of information or an audit. It was just a tort claim against the federal government.
The Federal Reserve was established by Congress with the Federal Reserve Act. This piece of legislation allowed the federal government to create the Federal Reserve. Under this Act, the Fed is run by the Board of Governors which consists of seven members appointed by the President of the United States and approve the US Senate.
This is usually enough for most people. I am assuming it is not enough for you.
Yes. The Federal Reserve does not qualify as a federal agency under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
You are quoting the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case where a Federal Reserve truck struck Mr. Lewis.
This quote is often used out of context by people who do not bother doing just a bit more research.
Let us provide some context.
Here is the rest of the ruling by the Ninth Circuit:
"Each Bank is statutorily empowered to conduct these activities without day to day direction from the federal government. Thus, for example, the interest rates on advances to member banks, individuals, partnerships, and corporations are set by each Reserve Bank and their decisions regarding the purchase and sale of securities are likewise independently made.
It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks:
It is proposed that the Government shall retain sufficient power over the reserve banks to enable it to exercise a direct authority when necessary to do so, but that it shall in no way attempt to carry on through its own mechanism the routine operations and banking which require detailed knowledge of local and individual credit and which determine the funds of the community in any given instance. In other words, the reserve-bank plan retains to the Government power over the exercise of the broader banking functions, while it leaves to individuals and privately owned institutions the actual direction of routine.
The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them federal agencies under the Act. In United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), the Supreme Court held that a community action agency was not a federal agency or instrumentality for purposes of the Act, even though the agency was organized under federal regulations and heavily funded by the federal government. Because the agency's day to day operation was not supervised by the federal government, but by local officials, the Court refused to extend federal tort liability for the negligence of the agency's employees. Similarly, the Federal Reserve Banks, though heavily regulated, are locally controlled by their member banks. Unlike typical federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services."
"The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes. In United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1982), this court held that a Federal Reserve Bank employee who was responsible for recommending expenditure of federal funds was a "public official" under the Federal Bribery Statute. That statute broadly defines public official to include any person acting "for or on behalf of the Government." S. Rep. No. 2213, 87th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1962), reprinted in (1962) U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 3852, 3856. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a). The test for determining status as a public official turns on whether there is "substantial federal involvement" in the defendant's activities. United States v. Hollingshead, 672 F.2d at 754. In contrast, under the FTCA, federal liability is narrowly based on traditional agency principles and does not necessarily lie when the tortfeasor simply works for an entity, like the Reserve Banks, which perform important activities for the government.
The Reserve Banks are deemed to be federal instrumentalities for purposes of immunity from state taxation. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston v. Commissioner of Corporations & Taxation, 499 F.2d 60 (1st Cir. 1974), after remand, 520 F.2d 221 (1st Cir. 1975); Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis v. Register of Deeds, 288 Mich. 120, 284 N.W. 667 (1939). The test for determining whether an entity is a federal instrumentality for purposes of protection from state or local action or taxation, however, is very broad: whether the entity performs an important governmental function. Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 102, 62 S.Ct. 1, 5, 86 L.Ed. 65 (1941); Rust v. Johnson, 597 F.2d 174, 178 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 964, 100 S.Ct. 450, 62 L.Ed.2d 376 (1979). The Reserve Banks, which further the nation's fiscal policy, clearly perform an important governmental function."
"Performance of an important governmental function, however, is but a single factor and not determinative in tort claims actions. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis v. Metrocentre Improvement District, 657 F.2d 183, 185 n.2 (8th Cir. 1981), Cf. Pearl v. United States, 230 F.2d 243 (10th Cir. 1956). State taxation has traditionally been viewed as a greater obstacle to an entity's ability to perform federal functions than exposure to judicial process; therefore tax immunity is liberally applied. Federal Land Bank v. Priddy, 294 U.S. 229, 235, 55 S.Ct. 705, 708, 79 L.Ed. 1408 (1955). Federal tort liability, however, is based on traditional agency principles and thus depends upon the principal's ability to control the actions of his agent, and not simply upon whether the entity performs an important governmental function. See United States v. Orleans, 425 U.S. 807, 815, 96 S.Ct. 1971, 1976, 48 L.Ed.2d 390 (1976), United States v. Logue, 412 U.S. 521, 527-28, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 2219, 37 L.Ed.2d 121 (1973).
Brinks Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 466 F.Supp. 116 (D.D.C.1979), held that a Federal Reserve Bank is a federal instrumentality for purposes of the Service Contract Act, 41 U.S.C. § 351. Citing Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, the court applied the "important governmental function" test and concluded that the term "Federal Government" in the Service Contract Act must be "liberally construed to effectuate the Act's humanitarian purposes of providing minimum wage and fringe benefit protection to individuals performing contracts with the federal government." Id. 288 Mich. at 120, 284 N.W.2d 667.
Such a liberal construction of the term "federal agency" for purposes of the Act is unwarranted. Unlike in Brinks, plaintiffs are not without a forum in which to seek a remedy, for they may bring an appropriate state tort claim directly against the Bank; and if successful, their prospects of recovery are bright since the institutions are both highly solvent and amply insured.
For these reasons we hold that the Reserve Banks are not federal agencies for purposes of the Federal Tort Claims Act and we affirm the judgment of the district court."
TL;DR
It is a government agency that provides an essential government function. It is not operated by the government but by local bank members. This means that it does not qualify as a federal agency under the FTCA requires a federal agency be operated by the federal government. While it is operated and controlled by government appointed/approved governors, those governors and all employees do not constitute federal control.
This means that the Federal Reserve is only not considered a federal agency for federal tort cases due to FTCA requires for federal tort cases. This has nothing to do with its status as a federal agency providing a federal function.
Others have covered the other parts of your argument, but there is no "crazy printing of money".
The printing of money is really just to replace damaged bills, if you're referring to inflation, that's mostly the result of interest rates. Physical money is being produced at a fairly modest rate
While I like Trump's perspective and enjoy his novel approach to some vexing problems, I have one overriding concern. Like many other super successful businessmen, he is accustomed to giving orders and expecting them to be carried out. He is not used to working through a body of lawmakers, to accomplish his objectives. Wielding ultimate authority successfully is Trump's greatest talent. Vision and planning is his second talent. He is completely untested and inexperienced in dealing with a Washington style bureaucracy to get things done. For this reason, I believe there is huge potential for frustration and failure.
-
I recall a meeting between Obama and Steve Jobs at the WH. After the meeting, Jobs commented that Obama had spent much of the time explaining why he could not get things done. Steve could not see why Obama was making excuses rather than just taking action.
The fake hair on Trump's head stands up whenever someone mentions his birth certificate. His fake hair only does that when people are lying ... or windy days.
This just hurts the Republican party. It's amazing to me how many complete clowns have been significant candidates in the past few elections... I mean Herman Cain?? Rick Perry?? Rick Santorum?? Trump is not electable at all...
Nope he's a racist bastard and I feel he will make wrong decision for America and he doesn't even deserve the title, and he already been bankrupted before how do we know he won't bankrupt the United States so no way!!!!
The people voted for Obama TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!! That proves the majority of Americans will vote for anyone or anything that gives them free stuff on the backs of tax payers. Obama proved he was a Liberal extremist and the worst president of all time and the low end voters STILL ELECTED HIM!
The stupidity and laziness of so many Americans today, without one shred of pride and not ashamed in the least of living off tax payers, is the scariest thing going on in this nation.
Greatest mass deportation in history. Unnecessary. I disagree with Trump on almost all points, other than "the people in office are screw ups." Other than I'd add onto that before the period "including Trump."
But I do not support Hillary either. I hate Hillary. Most people don't agree with me, but I am 100% genuinely convinced she is a criminal. She pardoned terrorists from the 1970s who had been in jail for over thirty years, (probably about 40). She harassed Bill's rape victims into staying silent. Her policies are not that much different from Obama's. When she gets elected, if she gets elected (I think its quite likely unless she is somehow disqualified), we are in big trouble. She did very little as a Senator for the US and she is a screw up when it comes to being Secretary of State. That said, I don't like Trump either.
In fact, the only thing on his presidential support website is that he thinks Sanctuary Cities should be defunded and mexico should pay for a wall. Why should we trust someone who isn't transparent with us and will just increase government?
Seems to offend people, had anger issues in the past, been part of a ERB in Season 1 as a angry version of him... yeah he's getting lowered and Hillary is getting above him a bit more. I won't allow him to become president for his issues and image of what he is. Despite the famous "mexicans..."
I agree with you. I am hoping there's a chance that Hillary will be disqualified soon because Julian Assange claims he can release something that would force the FBI to indict and Preed Bharara is on the case with the current Hillary investigation, which combined makes me think that there is a chance they might be able to give the nomination back to Bernie Sanders. I know its too late for him as of right now, but I think its possible if she was disqualified somehow and I believe its very possible she will be. The most recent FBI email leak shows she has alzheimers or something. I mean she can't remember the basic rules of handling classified info nor can she remember a lot of basic stuff needed to be Secretary of State and the job she's been doing proves it.
The dude is stupid and racist. Hes a rich white man that thinks hes above everyone else. "Small loan of a million dollars." This quote shows how selfish he is. He claims that hes had a chard life because the "small" loan. The dude is rich! However, in a bad way.
However, if Donald Trump found his way onto the ballot for president, even Bernie Sanders would look more attractive than a bigoted, pathologically narcissistic, politically schizophrenic, misogynistic, ethically bankrupt, draft-dodging charlatan. QUOTED FROM LINK... ANYWAY, I AM NOT LIVING IN THE U.S OR AMERICA... SO..
Politically schizophrenic. That does not even remotely make sense as a statement. With respect to being bigoted, self-absorbed, and unethical... those are unfortunately not particularly distinctive attributes among the candidates.
Glad your not living in America. You would be yet one more ignorant low end voter electing people like Obama so you can get free stuff off the tax payers.
donald trump is evil to mexico:( so sad and evil!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:( :( :( :( :( :(
I would never support Trump either, but hardly because there are "very good contenders" in the field. Trump just happens to be worse than the other bad options...