Cdl core Files 2015-2016 cdl core Files


**Elections Disadvantage Negative



Download 1.69 Mb.
Page60/75
Date18.10.2016
Size1.69 Mb.
#2993
1   ...   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   ...   75

**Elections Disadvantage Negative

1NC Hillary Good

  1. Uniqueness- Hillary Clinton currently leads every other presidential candidate in the polls


Christian Today 2015 “Hillary Clinton vs Jeb Bush and Donald Trump polls 2016: Clinton leads in latest CNN poll” http://www.christiantoday.com/article/hillary.clinton.vs.jeb.bush.and.donald.trump.polls.2016.clinton.leads.bush.and.trump.in.cnn.poll/57836.htm, July 6

Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump appear to be competing head to head in the 2016 US presidential race, and as a result, both are scoring high in the polls.¶ Clinton is now slightly leading the Democrats, while ex-governor of Florida Jeb Bush and Donald Trump are two of the Republican candidates scoring high, a new national poll from CNN/ORC finds.¶ According to political writer, Ron Kampeas, in a report from the Irish Examiner, Republicans seem to like Trump because of his attacks targeted at each of Clinton's turns, adding that each time the former first lady retaliates, she ends up boosting her standing.¶ The Wednesday CNN poll showed Clinton ahead of other challengers from the Democratic side by more than 40 percentage points. She stands ahead of vice president Biden, Bernie Sanders, Jim Webb and Martin O' Malley. For the Republican candidates, Bush is seen to have 19% of the votes and Trump has 12%, Mike Huckabee 8%, and Ben Carson and Rand Paul 7% each.¶ The CNN/ORC Poll was done via telephone on June 26 to 28, CNN reports. The poll was conducted on 1,017 randomly selected adults, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.¶ Meanwhile, it appears that Clinton's support extends all the way to Canada, based on a new poll that surveyed how Canadians feel about U.S. politics.¶ According to the report, if Canadians had to vote for the next president of the U.S., Clinton would surely "win by the largest landslide in the country's history."¶ The Canadian poll also revealed that the country's voters would willingly elect another Clinton for president and it won't matter who her contenders were. If Clinton were to run against Bush or the real estate mogul Trump, Canadians would still vote the former first lady any time.



  1. Link- recent polls prove the public views domestic surveillance as a necessary evil-the plan makes Americans feel more vulnerable to national security issues

Pew Research Center 2013- “Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic” http://www.people-press.org/2013/06/10/majority-views-nsa-phone-tracking-as-acceptable-anti-terror-tactic/


A majority of Americans – 56% – say the National Security Agency’s (NSA) program tracking the telephone records of millions of Americans is an acceptable way for the government to investigate terrorism, though a substantial minority – 41% – say it is unacceptable. And while the public is more evenly divided over the government’s monitoring of email and other online activities to prevent possible terrorism, these views are largely unchanged since 2002, shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.¶ The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center and The Washington Post, conducted June 6-9 among 1,004 adults, finds no indications that last week’s revelations of the government’s collection of phone records and internet data have altered fundamental public views about the tradeoff between investigating possible terrorism and protecting personal privacy.¶ Currently 62% say it is more important for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. Just 34% say it is more important for the government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.¶ These opinions have changed little since an ABC News/Washington Post survey in January 2006. Currently, there are only modest partisan differences in these opinions: 69% of Democrats say it is more important for the government to investigate terrorist threats, even at the expense of personal privacy, as do 62% of Republicans and 59% of independents.

  1. Internal Link- vulnerability means the American public will elect a republican,


Kuttner 2015- Robert, The American Prospect, co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect, and professor at Brandeis University's Heller School

“National Security and the 2016 Election”



http://prospect.org/article/national-security-and-2016-election

So, like it or not, the 2016 presidential election will be about national security. And most Americans and most voters will be very fearful of the threat that the Islamic State represents and confused about how we should respond. In its lifetime, the United States has faced countless threats, and it has overreacted to many. Often in the 20th century, the U.S. government acted as an agent of U.S. corporate interests, wrapping them in the broader rhetoric of the Cold War. And the Cold War itself led to policies that were often excessive and self-defeating, not the least of which was Vietnam.¶ That said, the Islamic State is a true threat, and one that presents difficult if not impossible choices. It is hydra-headed. Lop off one leader and 10 others appear.¶ The threat of al-Qaeda and the Taliban was easy compared to this new one. These organizations actually had a command structure that could be monitored and disrupted.¶ The Islamic State and kindred groups represent a throwback to barbarism, yet because of the broad unrest of hundreds of millions of people, their cause has appeal on the ground. And the West has precious few allies in the region that can plausibly serve as either ideological or military counterweights.¶ Even if the West had the stomach for ground warfare in a war of civilizations, it is not clear where the theatres of operation would be. There is potentially a band that stretches all the way from Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria, through Libya and Somalia, into the region of Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, that is vulnerable to the most brutal sort of Islamist fundamentalism.¶ There are three broad strands of thinking on how the United States ought to respond. One is basically isolationist. Let them stew in their own juices. My wife taught me a terrific Polish proverb that translates, "Not my circus, not my monkeys."¶ There are some conservatives who espouse this view, such as Rand Paul and the Cato Institute, some lefties like Noam Chomsky who think this retribution is the West's just dessert for its past sins, as well as such centrist foreign policy scholars as John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.¶ I am a little queasy about such views because I find the prospect of the Islamic State taking over much of the world frightening. Even if you write off the fates of hundreds of millions of people (half them women by the way), the march of the Islamic State really does increase the chances of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of people who don't mind blowing up the world, because they are certain that they are bound for glory.¶ The second strand of thinking might be called Wilsonian. The U.S., in this view, has a duty to intervene because of the need to bring true Enlightenment democracy to regions that are otherwise vulnerable to the appeal of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. Well, based on the events of the past 15 years, good luck to that.¶ The third viewpoint we might call realpolitik. It argues that the West needs to act against the threat of the Islamic State, even if that means getting into bed with some unsavory people -- the very people whose dominance in the region helped seed the unrest that led to fundamentalist Islam. Are we to say that the Saudi monarchy is the lesser evil? How about Bashar al-Assad?¶ There have been times in American history when we sided with lesser evils against greater ones, our wartime alliance with Stalin against Hitler being the epic case. Henry Kissinger, the ultimate foreign policy realist, persuaded Richard Nixon to embrace Red China as a counterweight to the USSR, back in an era when China really was ferociously communist as well as brutal.¶ The problem is that President Obama has vacillated between wanting to be Wilson and wanting to be Kissinger. Whatever the policy, it needs to be coherent. So we will go into the 2016 election with the electorate feeling very uneasy about our national security, and with Democrats somewhat on the defensive.¶ Normally, that would help the Republicans. Except that no Republican first-tier presidential candidate has foreign policy experience.¶ Let's see. Chris Christie can see the World Trade Center from his window. Scott Walker led wars -- on unions and on the University of Wisconsin. Marco Rubio sees national security through the prism of immigration and Cuba. And Jeb Bush has only the proxy foreign policy expertise of his family connections -- which did not perform so well.¶ Which brings us to Hillary Clinton. On the plus side, she was Secretary of State. On the minus side, she was Secretary of State. She is also female, which some retrograde voters associate with weak -- and she has bent over backwards to be the most hawkish of the Democrats, a posture that could wear better than expected as more threats unfold. But whatever you think of her views, Clinton does have more national security chops than anyone else in the field.

  1. Impact- A Hillary Clinton presidency is key to preserve the progress made by Obama on Iranian nuclear negotiations


Washington Post 2015 - “Clinton backs Obama on opposing new Iran sanctions

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/21/clinton-backs-obama-on-opposing-new-iran-sanctions/



New congressional sanctions on Iran would give Iranian allies Russia and China an excuse to to back out of international negotiations and destroy chances for a nuclear deal, former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday.¶ The likely Democratic presidential candidate praised President Obama's strategy of holding off on new penalties against Iran while seeking a deal to curb that nation's nuclear program. The United States and many other nations suspect Iran has used its nuclear research as cover for a secret weapons development program.¶ "If the U.S. Congress imposes sanctions before we even know the answers to the questions we are asking, I think it is highly likely that Russia and China" would walk out and end the United Nations Security Council-backed effort to curb the Iranian program, Clinton said.¶ The White House is trying to quash a bipartisan proposal to levy new economic restrictions on Iran, arguing that the talks, already in overtime, must run their course. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, Obama repeated a threat to veto those sanctions, but the White House is worried that the current debate will poison what have been mostly cordial negotiations.¶ Clinton was Obama's chief diplomat when preparations for the talks were laid, but has also backed harsh penalties against Iran in the past. She said she agrees with Obama that "no deal is better than a bad deal," but that a good deal is still possible.¶ Speaking at a forum sponsored in part by Canadian businesses, Clinton said additional sanctions would give "Iran and others an excuse not to continue negotiations" at a time when existing sanctions and falling oil prices appear to be helping U.S. bargaining power.¶ "That would be, in my view, a very serious strategic error," Clinton said. "Why would we want to be the catalyst for the collapse of negotiations before we really know whether there is something we can get out of them?"

5. Failure to sustain the negotiations independently causes global war through miscalculation


PressTV, 2013 (“Global nuclear conflict between US, Russia, China likely if Iran talks fail,” http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/11/13/334544/global-nuclear-war-likely-if-iran-talks-fail/)

A global conflict between the US, Russia, and China is likely in the coming months should the world powers fail to reach a nuclear deal with Iran, an American analyst says.¶ “If the talks fail, if the agreements being pursued are not successfully carried forward and implemented, then there would be enormous international pressure to drive towards a conflict with Iran before [US President Barack] Obama leaves office and that’s a very great danger that no one can underestimate the importance of,” senior editor at the Executive Intelligence Review Jeff Steinberg told Press TV on Wednesday. ¶ “The United States could find itself on one side and Russia and China on the other and those are the kinds of conditions that can lead to miscalculation and general roar,” Steinberg said. ¶ “So the danger in this situation is that if these talks don’t go forward, we could be facing a global conflict in the coming months and years and that’s got to be avoided at all costs when you’ve got countries like the United States, Russia, and China with” their arsenals of “nuclear weapons,” he warned. ¶ The warning came one day after the White House told Congress not to impose new sanctions against Tehran because failure in talks with Iran could lead to war.




Download 1.69 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   ...   75



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review