TSDC TRUMP BAD ELECTIONS DISAD

TSDC TRUMP BAD ELECTIONS DISAD...............................................................................................................................................1***TRUMP BAD 1NC***..........................................................................................................................................................................2*Otherization Impact......................................................................................................................................................................6***Florida Module***......................................................................................................................................................................9# - Economy.......................................................................................................................................................................................10#Global Warming Impacts........................................................................................................................................................11# Trans Pacific Partnership....................................................................................................................................................................13Internal Link Trump Destroys TPP......................................................................................................................................................13U-Clinton will support TPP in 2017.....................................................................................................................................15TPP IMPACTS...................................................................................................................................................................................18China joining solves Asian war...............................................................................................................................................19L - New Spending (Independents)........................................................................................................................................21L - New Spending (Youth).........................................................................................................................................................22L-Govt spending upopular-protests prove.......................................................................................................................23***Impacts – Republican Win Bad***..................................................................................................................................24# - Laundry List...............................................................................................................................................................................25# - Iran..................................................................................................................................................................................................27# - Economy.......................................................................................................................................................................................28# - Prolif/Terror Attack...............................................................................................................................................................29# - A2......................................................................................................................................................................................................32A2 U-TRUMP WILL WIN.............................................................................................................................................................33A2 L-Clinton Bad for economy................................................................................................................................................34A2-Clinton Disastrous for foreign policy..........................................................................................................................35A2 Clinton against TPP...............................................................................................................................................................36A2 Clinton against China Engagement.............................................................................................................................37A2 China Engagement popular-Trade proves.............................................................................................................38

*** TRUMP BAD 1NC*** A. Uniqueness: Clinton will win in 2016

1. Latest polls prove(must constantly update this)

Leada Gore June 15, 2016 ahttp://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/06/donald_trump_vs_hillary_clinto.html

A new Bloomberg poll has Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton with a 12-point lead over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. The national poll shows Clinton leading Trump 49 percent to 37 percent among likely voters in November's general election. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson was the choice for 9 percent of responders; 4 percent said they weren't sure; and 1 percent said they didn't plan to vote.

B. Links

1. Obama popularity key to Clinton victory

Joe Crowe May 2016 http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-prediction-election-moodys-analytics/2016/05/23/id/730220/#ixzz4BgKozMg6

Moody's Analytics has released its election model and is predicting that Hillary Clinton will be the next

president of the United States. Moody's Analytics has correctly predicted the winner of the presidency

since 1980, basing its predictions on a two-year change in economic data in home prices, income growth,

and gasoline prices, according to an NPR report. Moody's analyst, Dan White, said that those three

things affect a person's daily life the most.

"Things that affect marginal voter behavior most significantly are things that the average American is

going to run into on an almost daily basis," White said. The Moody's analyst told NPR that a decline in

gas prices points to a win for the incumbent Democratic Party. "We are currently in the largest decline in

gas prices we've had going back to World War II," White said. The model predicts that the Democratic

nominee, who is likely to be Clinton, will earn 332 electoral votes while presumptive Republican nominee

Donald Trump will win 206. Moody's also looked at the approval rating of the incumbent president,

measuring a two-year range moving up to election day. White said Obama's approval rating is key to the

economic model's prediction. If the rise in approval ratings holds, Obama could have the highest approval

rating since President Ronald Reagan at the end of the Cold War.

2. Election is on the brink and Trump could win

Matthew J. Belvedere http://twitter.com/Matt_Belvedere http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/15/dan-rather-i-can-see-trump-winning-and-clinton-should-be-really-worried.html

Dan Rather, former "CBS Evening News" anchor, said Wednesday that Republican Donald Trump can win the

presidency, and Democratic supporters of Hillary Clinton should be "very, very afraid.""I'm not predicting [Trump]

will win, but I will say he's capable of winning in November. He has a path," Rather told CNBC's "Squawk Box,"

adding he does not expect the real estate billionaire to bow to pressure to be more "presidential.""Anybody who

thinks Donald Trump is going to moderate himself along the way is either slightly 'touched' or 'smoking something

very expensive.' It's not going to happen," said Rather, currently host of "The Big Interview" on AXS TV."My own

opinion again," Rather said, "Democrats who want Hillary Clinton to be president should be afraid. They should be

very, very afraid."

3. Engagement with China is not popular with U.S. voters

A) Engagement generally unpopular

PEW RESEARCH CENTER, December 2013. http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03/public-sees-u-s-power-

declining-as-support-for-global-engagement-slips/

The public’s skepticism about U.S. international engagement – evident in America’s Place in the World surveys four and

eight years ago – has increased. Currently, 52% say the United States “should mind its own business internationally and let

other countries get along the best they can on their own.” Just 38% disagree with the statement. This is the most lopsided

balance in favor of the U.S. “minding its own business” in the nearly 50-year history of the measure.

B) Specifically with China

He Yafei Jan 25, 2016 (former vice minister of the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council, and former vice minister at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs) http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/u-s-election-and-its-impact-on-chinaHere comes China, whose economic growth and military modernization in recent years represents, to American people, a world that undergoes rapid changes and evolves to a multipolar one where the US is no longer being able to call shot on everything. The resentment against globalization is on the rise. Overall strategic retrenchment and an emphatic shift to focus more on China are taking place simultaneously. “Scapegoating” China is inevitable. “China has taken jobs away from American workers”. “China is manipulating its currency to gain advantage in trade”. “China is being aggressive in the South China Sea and trying to drive the US out of the Western Pacific”. The list of complaints can go on and on. It doesn’t matter whether those accusations and complaints are true or not to American politicians and voters as

long as they have “election value”. For instance, the renminbi has appreciated against the US dollar to the tune of 30% since 2008, but voices are still strong in America calling for the RMB to appreciate further.

4. Trump is Anti-China and will disengage with China

Bradner,June30, 2016 (Eric, Staff writer CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/donald-trump-trade-chamber-of-commerce-business/index.html “Donald Trump vows to scrap trade deals, threatens China”

Trump has broken from Republican orthodoxy and embraced a protectionist trade stance that more closely mirrors liberals such as Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The real estate mogul has opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and on Tuesday said he'd seek to withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement -- a move that would result in the upheaval of economies across the continent. Trump argued that by doing so, he'd create more manufacturing jobs in the United States -- a key element of his appeal to white, working-class communities in swing states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan

C. Impacts:

1. TRUMP WILL GO NUCLEAR

Blair, June 11, 2016 . (http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955(Bruce G. Blair is a nuclear security expert and a research scholar at the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton and the co-founder of Global Zero.)What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? POLITICO.CO June 11, 2016)

“The biggest problem we have is nuclear— nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.” Hillary Clinton, June 2, 2016: “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes. It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.” To a degree we haven’t seen, perhaps, since the candidacy of Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964, the question of Donald Trump’s temperament and judgment on matters of war and WASHINGTON AND THE WORLD What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button? And it’s not just Trump’s generalelection opponent, Hillary Clinton, who’s hinting at this; his former GOP rival, Marco Rubio, repeated his earlier concerns about Trump only this week, saying America can't give "the nuclear codes of the United States to an erratic individual." Others would side with Trump’s view that the weapons themselves—which pack a destructive force amounting to “Hiroshima times a thousand,” as he put it—are the evil. But these points are not mutually exclusive. What would it mean to have Trump’s fingers on the nuclear button? We don't really know, but we do know this: In the atomic age, when decisions must be made very quickly, the presidency has evolved into something akin to a nuclear monarchy. With a single

phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control. There is no advice and consent by the Senate. There is no secondguessing by the Supreme Court. Even ordering the use of torture—which Trump infamously once said he would do, insisting the military “won’t refuse. They’re not gonna refuse me”— imposes more legal constraints on a president than ordering a nuclear attack. If he were president, Donald Trump—who likes to say he doesn't spend a lot of time conferring with others ("My primary consultant is myself," he declared in March)— would be free to launch a civilizationending nuclear war on his own any time he chose.

2. NUCLEAR WAR EQUALS EXTINCTION

Nuclear apartheid is a poison that will spread across the world leaving human rights violations in its wake.Gopal,’98 - Prof. of History @ Jawaharlal Nehru Univ., (Sarvepalli, International Social Scicence Journal 50.157, “Images of world Society: a Third World View,”)BBL A world society, of course, is not just the product of relations between the constituent states; perhaps even more important than international politics are domestic conditions. It goes without saying

that our future can be neither just nor stable as long as racism is prevalent and in some areas is even the basis of state policy. Apartheid is not only an intolerable violation of human dignity and freedom; it fouls the atmosphere everywhere and endangers world peace. The inequality between races does not always take so flagrant a form, but the poison is widespread and needs to be eradicated before we can even consider laying firm foun- dations for a world society. There are ot h er forms of inequality which, if less cr im inal than racism, a l s o call fo r our attention. The current efforts to secure for women a proper status in society will obviously have to continue. If the worth of a civilization is properly assessed by the way it treats its women, this criterion will apply to the world community as well.

*Otherization Impact

Otherization is the root of dehumanization and conflict. Nuclear wars and holocaust are made possible by otherization of the enemyKovel 84, Prof Pol, Comm, & Psych @ Einstein, (Joel, 1984, Against the State of Nuclear Terror, p175-6) MH

The irrationality that often befalls groups on the margins of society reveals the working of a general mechanism that undoubtedly contributes in a major way to the stability of irrational and oppressive social orders. When society as a whole is irrational and permeated with violence and domination, then each individual within it will stand to internalize some of the same as he or she runs the gauntlet of personal development. By “internalize,” I mean the development of unconscious structured relations with others. We each have an internal (i.e., intrapsychic) group of relations between the “I” and the “Other” that is, on the one hand, quite fantastic and out of immediate contact with external reality, while, on the other, is shaped by that reality and is shaped by it in turn. Such shaping occurs through the mental processes called introjection (modeling of the self by the world) and projection (modeling of the world according to the self). The Other, being the negation of the self, can take on many characteristics, good or bad. The Other, therefore, is both a rough replication of the goodness and badness of the external world as well as a determinant of that goodness or badness. When we congregate into groups (including the society which is integral to these groups) the relations of Otherness take on a decisive importance. For in the formation of a group a kind of splitting necessarily takes place between elements of the Other. This splitting is shaped about the irreducible fact of the group (or society) and its identity. If there is a group, then one is either in it or not. From another angle, groups take shape about the deployment of the feeling of “insideness.” And once one is in, then there must be an outside. If there is an America, then one can be an American. If so, then all others become Other, and non-Americans or foreigners. A lot of history has turned around the fact that the basic inside-outside relations of groups have come to be fused with the goodness and badness of the Other. Then all those inside become good, and all outside, bad. The members of the group each return to being of the “purified pleasure ego,” described earlier when we were developing the notion of paranoia and the general psychology of technocracy. Insofar as the bad outside takes on a persecutory quality, the group itself becomes paranoid—with this key difference between the group and the individual level: that the individual paranoiac experiences the persecution immediately, while the member of the group is insulated by identification with the others and his or her participation in the group’s practice. In this way, the paranoia is delegated to the group as a whole. We might say that it becomes de-subjectified and passes beyond the psychologies of the individuals of the group. The individual mind remains under the sway of the affiliation of the good Other that remains inside group relations. Meanwhile the persecutory potential of the outsiders is reduced by dehumanization. This is how people remain “normal” individually while countenancing and even actively carrying out the most heinous and irrational acts on the “thingified” and dehumanized bodies of outsiders. It tells us a lot about how gracious and kindly white Southerners could lynch and castrate blacks; of how good, clean efficient Germans could turn Jews into lampshades; of how Israelis, with their ancient tradition of Jewish compassionateness, earned through centuries of suffering, could calculatedly dispossess the Palestinian people; and of course, how the friendly Americans could annihilate Hiroshima and cut their swath through history.

Trump Link. Trump goes beyond otherization. Trump is flat out a racist. Yes we said it and it is the Uncomfortabble truth about the Donald

empirical examples

O’Connor and Marans 2016 ( Lydia O’Connor Reporter, The Huffington Post ,Daniel Marans Reporter, Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-racist-examples_us_56d47177e4b03260bf777e83POLITICS “Here Are 10 Examples Of Donald Trump Being Racist” May 19, 2016

1. He does not disavow the KKK

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump may have failed to disavow the Ku Klux Klan in late February,

but he’ll have you know he is not racist. In fact, he claims to be “the least racist person that you have ever met,” and

last summer he pulled out the old standby about not having a racist bone in his body. But he hasn’t given us a lot of

reason to believe that. In fact, despite Trump’s protests to the contrary, he has a long history of saying and doing

racist things. It’s not really surprising that he’s won the support and praise of the country’s white supremacists.

Here’s a running list of some of the most glaringly racist things associated with Trump. We’re sure we’ll be adding

to it soon. Apparently Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) does not mind Trump’s racism. Sessions endorsed the GOP

front-runner on Monday Three times in a row on Feb. 28, Trump sidestepped opportunities to renounce white

nationalist and former KKK leader David Duke, who told his radio audience last week that voting for any candidate

other than Trump is “really treason to your heritage.”

2. He refuses to rent to Black people The Justice Department sued his company — twice — for not renting to black peopleWhen Trump was serving as the president of his family’s real estate company, the Trump Management Corporation, in 1973, the Justice Department sued the company for alleged racial discrimination against black people looking to rent apartments in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island.The lawsuit charged that the company quoted different rental terms and conditions to black rental candidates than it did with white candidates, and that the company lied to black applicants about apartments not being available. Trump called those accusations “absolutely ridiculous” and sued the Justice Department for $100 million in damages for defamation.Without admitting wrongdoing, the Trump Management Corporation settled the original lawsuit two years later and promised not to discriminate against black people, Puerto Ricans or other minorities. Trump also agreed to send weekly vacancy lists for his 15,000 apartments to the New York Urban League, a civil rights group, and to allow the NYUL to present qualified applicants for vacancies in certain Trump properties.Just three years after that, the Justice Department sued the Trump Management Corporation again for allegedly discriminating against black applicants by telling them apartments weren’t available.

3. He refused to condemn the white supremacists who are campaigning for him

When asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if he would condemn Duke and say he didn’t want a vote from him or any other white supremacists, Trump claimed that he didn’t know anything about white supremacists or about Duke himself. When Tapper pressed him twice more, Trump said he couldn’t condemn a group he hadn’t yet researched.By Feb. 29, Trump was saying that in fact he does disavow Duke, and that the only reason he didn’t do so on CNN was because of a “lousy earpiece.” Video of the exchange, however, shows Trump responding quickly to Tapper’s questions with no apparent difficulty in hearing.

It’s preposterous to think that Trump doesn’t know about white supremacist groups or their sometimes violent support of him. Reports of neo-Nazi groups rallying around Trump go back as far as August.His white supremacist fan club includes the Daily Stormer, a leading neo-Nazi news site; Richard Spencer, director of the National Policy Institute, which aims to promote the “heritage, identity, and future of European people”; Jared Taylor, editor of American Renaissance, a Virginia-based white nationalist magazine; Michael Hill, head of the League of the South, an Alabama-based white supremacist secessionist group; and Brad Griffin, a member of Hill’s League of the South and author of the popular white supremacist blog Hunter Wallace.A leader of the Virginia KKK who is backing Trump told a local TV reporter earlier this month, “The reason a lot of Klan members like Donald Trump is because a lot of what he believes, we believe in.”And most recently, the Trump campaign announced that one of its California primary delegates was William Johnson, chair of the white nationalist American Freedom Party. The Trump campaign subsequently said his inclusion was a mistake, and Johnson withdrew his name at their request.

4. He embraced the birther movement-racism cloaked in the flag

He questions whether President Obama was born in the United StatesLong before calling Mexican immigrants “criminals” and “rapists,” Trump was a leading proponent of “birtherism,” the racist conspiracy theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States and is thus an illegitimate president. Trump claimed in 2011 to have sent people to Hawaii to investigate whether Obama was really born there. He insisted at the time that the researchers “cannot believe what they are finding.”Obama ultimately got the better of Trump, releasing his long-form birth certificate and relentlessly mocking the real estate mogul about it at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner that year.But Trump continues to insinuate that the president was not born in the country.“I don’t know where he was born,” Trump said in a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday. (Again, for the record: He was born in Hawaii.)

5. He treats racial groups as monoliths Like many racial instigators, Trump often answers accusations of bigotry by loudly protesting that he actually loves the group in question. But that’s just as uncomfortable to hear, because he’s still treating all the members of the group — all the individual human beings — as essentially the same and interchangeable. Language is telling, here: Virtually every time Trump mentions a minority group, he uses the definite article the, as in “the Hispanics,” “the Muslims” and “the blacks.” In that sense, Trump’s defensive explanations are of a piece with his slander of minorities. Both rely on essentializing racial and ethnic groups, blurring them into simple, monolithic entities, instead of acknowledging that there’s as much variety among Muslims and Latinos and black people as there is among white people.How did Trump respond to the outrage last year that followed his characterization of Mexican immigrants as criminals and rapists? “I’ll take jobs back from China, I’ll take jobs back from Japan,” Trump said during his visit to the U.S.-Mexican border in July. “The Hispanics are going to get those jobs, and they’re going to love Trump.”

***Florida Module*** Florida is key to the election

Mann 2015 . http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-presidential-election-florida-2016-20150116-story.html“Numbers add up to 2016 presidential battleground in Florida”Anthony Man (Contact Reporter ) Sun Sentinel Jan. 18, 2015

Florida's rapidly changing population mix, deeply divided electorate and rank as the third most populous state in the nation could give Sunshine State voters the clout to decide who will win the presidency in 2016.As the closest swing state in the country, Florida's 29 electoral votes are a huge prize that represent more than 10 percent of the total needed to win the presidency. Florida is universally recognized as the path to the presidency, said Republican strategist Brett Doster, who ran President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election campaign in Florida and was senior adviser to Mitt Romney's state campaign in 2012.And that will continue in 2016, he said. "It's going to be a battleground because of its electoral status and it's going to be a battleground because of its unique personality and character." The fight for Florida is two battles: Each party has a very strong base of about 47 percent to 48 percent of the electorate,

# - Economy A Trump 2016 win will destroy economy

Bradner,June30, 2016 (Eric, Staff writer CNN) http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/donald-trump-trade-chamber-of-commerce-business/index.html “Donald Trump vows to scrap trade deals, threatens China

Trump plans to press ahead with his anti-free trade message in a speech in New Hampshire set for Thursday afternoon. Powerful business lobbies -- both traditionally supportive of Republican candidates -- took the highly unusual step of lashing out at Trump during a speech he gave Tuesday that hammered U.S. free-trade deals."Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the Chamber tweeted during Tuesday's speech in Monessen, Pennsylvania, linking to an analysis that argues Trump's trade positions would throw the United States into an economic recession. "The U.S. Chamber represents American businesses of all sizes from across the country, who recognize that free trade agreements, like the (Trans-Pacific Partnership), are an important way to accelerate economic growth and spur job creation in the U.S.," Blair Latoff Holmes, a spokesman for the Chamber, said in a statement. "This is not personal. It's not election politics. It's smart policy."

#Global Warming Impacts

1. A republican victory destroys global warming regulations. Capiello 5/27, (5/27/11, Dina, Associated Press, MSNBC, “GOP Presidential Hopefuls Shift on Global Warming” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43192439/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/gop-presidential-hopefuls-shift-global-warming/)

WASHINGTON — For Republican presidential contenders who once supported combatting global warming, the race is heating up. Faced with an activist right wing that questions the science linking pollution to changes in the Earth's climate and also disdains big government, most of the GOP contenders have stepped back from their previous positions on global warming. Some have apologized outright for past support of proposals to reduce heat-trapping pollution . And those who haven't fully recanted are under pressure to do so. The latest sign of that pressure came Thursday when New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said he was pulling his state out of a regional agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, saying it won't work. While Christie, a rising GOP star, has said he won't run for his party's presidential nomination, some in the party continue to recruit him. "Republican presidential hopefuls can believe in man-made global warming as long as they never talk about it, and oppose all the so-called solutions," said Marc Morano, a former aide to Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, one of the most vocal climate skeptics in Congress. Morano now runs a website called Climate Depot where he attacks anyone who buys into the scientific consensus on climate change. Enemy No. 1 for Morano these days is Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker who in 2008 shared a couch with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a TV ad backed by climate change guru Al Gore. In it Gingrich says, "We do agree that our country must take action on climate change." Since that appearance, Gingrich, who once ran an environmental studies program at a Georgia college, has called for the abolition of the E nvironmental P rotection A gency . He's also spoken out against a Democratic bill that passed the House in 2009 that would have limited emissions of greenhouse gases and created a market for pollution permits to be bought and sold. But that hasn't been enough to satisfy conservative critics. Gingrich, who in 2007 told The New York Times that it was conceivable human beings were playing a role in global warming, went further in a recent interview when he said he doubted there was a connection between climate change and the burning of fossil fuels. "The planet used to be dramatically warmer when we had dinosaurs and no people," Gingrich told The Macon (Ga.) Telegraph last week. "To the best of my knowledge the dinosaurs weren't driving cars." Cap-and-trade Where Gingrich has waffled, o ther GOP contenders have conceded on the issue of climate . Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman potentially come into the race with even more climate baggage, since all three supported as governors regional "cap-and-trade" programs to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. All have since abandoned that stance. "Everybody is instantly suspect about these guys," said Mike McKenna, a Republican strategist working with GOP leaders in Congress who want to prevent the EPA from taking steps to curb global warming. And it's not because the candidates once thought global warming was legitimate, McKenna says. "That just makes people question their judgment. It's that they all bought into a big government program. That makes people question their character." It's a marked turnaround for a party that just three years ago nominated Republican Sen. John McCain, who long has supported cap and trade to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and who campaigned on the issue even though it put him on the same side as his opponent, Barack Obama. In fact, the whole idea of a market to trade pollution credits came from the Republican Party. It emerged in the late 1980s under the administration of President George H.W. Bush as a free-market solution to the power plant pollution that was causing acid rain. It passed Congress nearly unanimously in 1990 as a way to control emissions of sulfur dioxide. But now it has become synonymous with partisanship and political risk . Legislation to use the pollution credits approach to curb global warming passed the Democratic-controlled House in 2009, with the support of Obama. It died in the Senate after Republicans labeled it a "cap-and-tax" plan that would raise energy prices and after House Democrats who voted for it were attacked at town hall meetings back home. Many of those Democrats lost their seats in last November's elections and with the House now under Republican control, Obama has said he no longer would pursue it. 'Toxic political veneer' The current field of Republican presidential hopefuls is working to shed what McCain's former environmental adviser calls the "toxic political veneer" of that policy. The biggest reversal has come from Pawlenty, who a year after signing a law in Minnesota to cut greenhouse gas emissions was featured in a radio ad for the Environmental Defense Action Fund. Joined by then-Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, now a member of Obama's Cabinet, Pawlenty called on Congress to limit the pollution blamed for global warming. "If we act now," he said in the spot, "we can create thousands of new jobs in clean energy industries before our overseas competitors beat us to it." Two years later, he wrote Congress opposing the Democratic bill, saying it was "overly bureaucratic, misguided and would be very burdensome on our economy." In a South Carolina debate earlier this month, he apologized altogether for his climate past, calling it a clunker in his record. "I don't duck it, bob it, weave it, try to explain it away," he said. "I'm just telling you, I made a mistake." Huntsman doesn't go as far. Obama's former ambassador to China, the country that releases more greenhouse gas pollution than any other, tells Time magazine in an interview to be published this week that it's the timing that's off. As governor of Utah, he appeared in a 2007 ad for an environmental advocacy group in which he said, "Now it's time for Congress to act by capping greenhouse gas pollution." He also signed an agreement with seven other Western states and four Canadian provinces to reduce greenhouse gases. Since then, other states have pulled their support. "Much of this discussion happened before the bottom fell out of the economy, and until it comes back, this isn't the moment," he says now. When asked whether he believes the climate is changing, he acknowledges the scientific consensus. "All I know is 90 percent of the scientists say climate change is occurring," he says. "If 90 percent of the oncological community said something was causing cancer, we'd listen to them." Romney changed his mind less recently. As Massachusetts governor in 2005, he initially supported a regional pollution-reduction market, saying it would spur jobs and the economy. Weeks later, he refused to sign the pact when the other states would not agree to cap the price for pollution permits. Palin's clean record If anyone has a clean record on climate change in the potential GOP field, it's former Alaska governor and 2008 vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin. While Palin set up a sub-Cabinet office to map out the state's response to global warming as governor, and sought federal dollars to help coastal communities threatened by erosion, she has been steadfast in saying human beings are not responsible for climate change and that proposals to limit pollution threaten the economy.

2. Warming causes extinctionTickell 08 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Guardian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, 8/11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean , in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction . The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable , bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost , complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts,

floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree

rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane – a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial

warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

# Trans Pacific PartnershipInternal Link Trump Destroys TPP

Lindell, 2016 (Erik, Staff Writer) “Why Clinton Will Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trump Will Not”May 8 2016http://www.e-ir.info/2016/05/08/why-clinton-will-support-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-trump-will-not

Donald Trump explained his opposition to the the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP). He wrote, “The number of jobs and amount of wealth and income the United States have given way in so short a time is staggering, likely unprecedented. And the situation is about to get drastically worse if the Trans-Pacific Partnership is not stopped. One of the first casualties of the TPP will be America’s auto industry, and among the worst victims of this pact will be the people of Ohio. The TPP will send America’s remaining auto jobs to Japan. Yet, Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio have all promoted the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a mortal threat to American manufacturing. … TPP is the biggest betrayal in a long line of betrayals where politicians have sold out U.S. workers. America’s politicians — beholden to global corporate interests who profit from offshoring — have enabled jobs theft in every imaginable way. They have tolerated foreign trade cheating while enacting trade deals that encourage companies to shift production overseas.”] During the Fox Business/Wall Street Journal Republican debate on November 10, 2015, Trump said that although he is a "free trader," he does not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal (TPP). Trump said, "The TPP is horrible deal. It is a deal that is going to lead to nothing but trouble. It’s a deal that was designed for China to come in, as they always do, through the back door and totally take advantage of everyone. It’s 5,600 pages long. So complex that nobodies read it. It’s like Obamacare; nobody ever read it. They passed it; nobody read it. And look at mess we have right now.

U-Clinton will support TPP in 2017

Lindell, 2016 (Erik, Staff Writer) “Why Clinton Will Support the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Trump Will Not”May 8 2016http://www.e-ir.info/2016/05/08/why-clinton-will-support-the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-trump-will-not

The twelve nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact is now public and subject to final legislative approval by the twelve participating countries. President Obama is hoping for Congressional ratification of the TPP before he leaves office. But it is entirely possible that the controversial trade deal will not come up for a final vote until 2017, after Obama has vacated the White House. The reason is simply because of the complexity of the treaty ratification process combined with election year politicking. Further muddying the TPP’s future is the opposition of the leading Presidential contenders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.Critics have hammered Clinton for her sudden, and politically expedient, reversal on the TPP. As Secretary of State Clinton was an enthusiastic supporter of the TPP, even referring to it as the gold standard of trade agreements. But with Democratic rival Bernie Sanders nipping at her electoral heels from the Left, Clinton decided to jump ship. American workers and their wages would be disadvantaged by the TPP, she now claims, adding that the agreement did not meet the high bar that she had set for it.b In response to unrelenting attacks by Sanders on her trade policies prior to the Ohio primary, Clinton further clarified her opposition. Her specific target became the complex TPP ‘rules of origin’ (ROO) governing autos. ROO determine what percentage of an auto would have to be made in a TPP country (how much ‘domestic content’) in order for it to qualify for benefits under the agreement, including importation into the U.S. with no tariffs.

The TPP sets the threshold for autos at 45% domestic content. Critics claim that the figure is too low and will disadvantage U.S. auto workers and auto parts makers. The problem, according to Senator Sherrod Brown (D – Ohio), is that ‘… most of the car’s value could come from (parts made in) China and then it would be assembled in a TPP country – say, Japan – and then that would be sold in the United States tariff-free.’

Under Rust Belt political pressure Clinton agreed. She then added, echoing a familiar refrain from Trump and Sanders, ‘We are going to enforce trade agreements and— are not going any longer to be at the mercy of what any country is going to do to take advantage of our markets.’

However, despite these electorally-driven protestations Clinton will nevertheless find a way to salvage the TPP. The reason is simply because she is diplomatically savvy and recognizes that the trade deal is, overall, in America’s best interests.

So why would Clinton push for the TPP? One reason is economic. The TPP will standardize trade and investment rules and regulations governing the participating states, making it easier and cheaper for American firms to conduct business. The ‘ noodle bowl ’ of bilateral trade agreements that currently crisscross Asian economies, which result in vastly different and conflicting trade rules, will give way to a more uniform and transparent trade regime.

The trade pact will also pry open service and agricultural markets, areas where American business excels (the U.S. runs a substantial trade surplus in services), increase the protection of American intellectual property (which many American jobs depend on), and apply many World Trade Organization standards to trade, labor rights, and the environment. It would be difficult for Clinton to pass on all this.

In addition, U.S. allies such as Japan and Australia view the TPP as an important vehicle to strengthen their domestic economies. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe addressed a joint session of Congress in 2015 and stressed the criticality of the TPP for regulatory reform in agriculture and other areas of the Japanese economy. Abe has battled against entrenched protectionist interests in the process.

Similarly, the Australian government is firmly in the pro-TPP camp. The agreement will, according to their Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, ‘open new trade and investment opportunities for Australia in the Asia-Pacific region, further integrate our economy in this fast growing region, and promote and facilitate regional supply chains.’ Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has called the TPP a ‘gigantic foundation stone’ which will deliver jobs and growth for Australia.

And like Japan, Australia constitutes an important partner for the U.S. as it ‘pivots’ to Asia as a hedge against an increasingly aggressive China. To that end the Obama Administration has strengthened bilateral cooperation with Australia in defense and space and established rotational deployment of U.S troops. In terms of American security, Defense Secretary Ash Carter has claimed that TPP passage is equivalent to adding another aircraft carrier.

If the next American president casually dismisses the interests of critical national security allies by torpedoing the TPP, after five years of intensive negotiations, U.S. credibility in the region will suffer accordingly. The Japanese Government has stated this publicly and also claimed that they will not renegotiate the pact.

Then there is the China challenge. The Xi Jinping regime has launched the Silk Road Economic Belt, an ambitious project to connect China to Central Asia, Iran and beyond with oil pipelines, railroads, and roads. The Silk Road initiative represents a concerted effort by the Chinese leadership to extend China’s economic and geopolitical influence throughout the region.

China is also the driving force behind the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a proposed trade agreement involving sixteen nations (including seven TPP states). The RCEP is China’s answer to the TPP. As one analyst notes, both the U.S. and China are competing to ‘—shape the architecture of economic cooperation in the region.’

The TPP, in turn, establishes an important American counter- presence in the Pacific Rim and demonstrates a continuing U.S. commitment to Asia’s security and economic prosperity. It is difficult to imagine a successful U.S. security pivot to the region without a corresponding economic pivot, in the form of the TPP.

The trade pact does not require every signatory to sign on before it comes into force. Rather if two years have passed and all signatories have not signed on, the TPP will still come into force as long as at least six original signatories have ratified it and these signatories represent at least 85% of the total GNP of the twelve original signatories. Translated this means that the TPP cannot come into force without both the U.S. and Japan signing on. And that is why the American Presidential election could possibly determine the ultimate fate of the trade deal.

Given the considerable American economic and diplomatic baggage riding on TPP passage, Clinton is unlikely to desert the TPP groom at the altar. She is astute and experienced enough in foreign affairs to realize that when the electoral battles are over, America’s commercial and diplomatic interests in Asia take precedence.

An account in Bloomberg once noted that ‘more than her predecessors, Clinton has argued that commercial diplomacy and the promotion of trade, long the neglected stepchildren of the foreign policy establishment, are central to U.S. strategic interests.’ And Clinton is well aware that those strategic interests include moving forward with the TPP.

How Clinton will address the auto ROO issue, if elected, remains to be seen. With the TPP deal now sitting on the tables of twelve national legislatures, awaiting final ratification, there is no easy solution. But keep in mind that Clinton has never unequivocally opposed the TPP as Sanders and Trump have. Rather the campaign has forced her into demanding greater benefits, a higher bar, for American workers. If elected, and if the TPP is still in play, she will be tasked with raising the bar sufficiently to convince labor, Progressives, and other TPP skeptics that her enthusiastic support for the trade agreement is now warranted.

Finally, there is the angry protectionist, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump who preaches economic salvation through protectionism, tariffs, and aggressive retaliation against any country that runs a trade surplus with the United States. Trump has also warned against the false song of globalism and argued that under his administration the U.S. would never enter any agreement ‘—that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.’

According to Trump the TPP and all U.S. trade pacts are ‘terrible.’ In the midst of the Super Tuesday primaries he eviscerated the agreement once more in an OPED.

Yet while Trump suggests that ‘his people’ are smarter and could produce better trade deals, it is nevertheless unlikely that Trump will support the TPP under any circumstances. For Trump has simply invested too much of his ego and credibility in condemning it to reverse course at this point. In addition, Trump appears to have only the slimmest understanding of global trade issues, the importance of imports and global supply chains for the American economy, and the larger geopolitical issues associated with trade. Moreover, when you claim that the ‘TPP is the biggest betrayal in a long line of betrayals where politicians have sold out U.S. workers’ there is no room left for political retreat.

If the TPP is not finalized before President Obama leaves the White House, its life or death will likely be contingent upon who wins the U.S. election in November.

TPP IMPACTS

China joining solves Asian war Hiroki Takeuchi is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the Sun & Star Program on Japan and East Asia in the Tower Center at Southern Methodist University, August, 2015, “The Political Economy of the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Implications beyond Economics,” http://hirokitakeuchi.com/upload/5897/documents/Political%20Economy%20of%20TPP%20Stanford%20Workshop.pdf (accessed 4/30/16)If China joins the TPP, it will have to be committed to the economic reforms that the reformist internationalists want to advance. The negotiated issues of the TPP include not only the SOE reform, which will directly undermine the vested interests that the conservative hardliners desperately want to protect, but intellectual property rights and labor conditions, which will also undermine the vested interests because the state capitalists tend to lack innovation and have to rely on copied products or low-wage labor. Thus, the early conclusion of the TPP will empower the reformist internationalists against the conservative hardliners in the power struggle of Chinese elite politics. The TPP will impose on China the “gaiatsu” (literally “foreign pressure”), which was frequently used during U.S.-Japan trade negotiations in the 1980s and 1990s. 33 This gaiatsu will promote market reform, which will shift the Chinese economy away from state capitalism; then, the empowered reformist internationalists will make China’s foreign policy more cooperative. Therefore, the TPP will strengthen the regional security of the Asia-Pacific region by turning China’s behavior toward international cooperation. By contrast, the failure of the TPP will empower the conservative hardliners vis-à-vis the reformist internationalists in Chinese domestic politics, make China’s behavior more aggressive in international relations, and make it more difficult for the United States and its allies to manage China’s rise and the regional security of the Asia-Pacific.

Trade is a controlling impact---economic partnerships solve every conflict because it reduces need for military conquest---global hotspots now, only trade-based alliances solve.Loren Mooney 14, citing Matthew O. Jackson, William D. Eberle Professor of Economics at Stanford, and PhD in economics from Stanford Graduate School of Business, May 28 2014, “Matthew O. Jackson: Can Trade Prevent War?” http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/matthew-o-jackson-can-trade-prevent-war (accessed 5/8/16)How can humans stop war? Obviously there's no simple answer, but a new network model analysis of international alliances suggests that trade may be at least part of the answer. The model, developed by Stanford economist Matthew O. Jackson and economics Ph.D. candidate Stephen Nei, suggests that military alliances alone aren't enough to stop nations from attacking one other, and also that the addition of multilateral economic trade creates a more stable, peaceful world.¶ While there is considerable existing research on the effects of trade and war, much of it has looked at bilateral relationships. This model focuses on multilateral interactions and considers various incentives for countries to attack, form alliances with, and trade with one another. In an attempt to understand what's necessary to achieve a stable network with no incentive for war, Jackson and Nei first explored an alliance scenario based solely on military defense considerations, excluding trade. "The fundamental difficulty we find is that alliances are costly to maintain if there's no economic incentive," says Jackson. So networks remain relatively sparse, a condition in which even a few shifting allegiances leaves some countries vulnerable to attack. "Stability is not just a little bit elusive; it's very elusive."¶ Economic trade, however, makes a significant difference. "Once you bring in trade, you see network structures densify," he says. Nations form a web of trading alliances, which creates financial incentive not only to keep peace with trading partners, but also to protect them from being attacked so as not to disrupt trade. "In the context of the alliances we have analyzed, trade motives are essential to avoiding wars and sustaining stable networks," the authors wrote in their paper, Networks of Military Alliances, Wars, and International Trade.¶ Their findings coincide with two major global trends since World War II: From 1950 to 2000, the incidence of interstate war has decreased nearly tenfold compared with the period from 1850 to 1949. At the same time, since 1950 international trade networks have increased nearly fourfold, becoming significantly more dense. "In the period before World War II, it was hard to find a stable set of alliances," says Jackson. The probability of a lasting alliance was about 60%. "You have almost a coin-flip chance that the alliance won't still be there in five years," he says. In Europe in the 1870s, for example, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck sought peace with "balance of power" diplomacy, which crumbled leading up to World War I. "Then in the past 50 years or so, there's been a surprising global stability." The impact of economic interdependence is especially apparent in Europe, Jackson says, where the Eurozone has promoted not only peace and increased trade among nations, but also labor mobility.¶ Very costly wars still occur, of course, but Jackson notes that the most war-torn places in recent history have tended to be those with fewer global trade alliances. For example, the Second Congo War from 1998 to 2003 and beyond, which killed more than four million people and is the deadliest war since World War II, involved eight African nations with relatively few trade ties. "Then look at the Kuwait situation," says Jackson, referring to U.S. intervention in the first Gulf War to protect oil supplies. "Economic interest drives a lot of what goes on in terms of where nations are willing to exercise military strength." quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.

Trade increases standard of living- prevents disease spreadMiriam Sapiro, visiting fellow at The Brookings Institution, 2014 Mirian, “Why trade matters” http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2014/09/why%20trade%20matters/trade%20global%20views_final.pdfWe should not take these spillover effects for granted, or overlook the powerful role that trade can play in promoting growth, raising living standards in some of the poorest countries, and reducing poverty, especially given that global trade remains below its normal rate of

expansion. Jeffrey Sachs and others have written extensively about the importance of trade liberalization to overall economic reform efforts and economic growth. ''While there has been debate about the extent to which trade openness can help alleviate poverty, recent studies show that trade does tend to reduce poverty when there are complementary reforms also under way. These enabling factors include a growing financial sector, improving education and better governance. This conclusion reinforces earlier research finding that trade generally is a "strongly positive contributor to poverty alleviation"" notwithstanding some shifts and temporary dislocations in the job market. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has drawn similar conclusions, stating in a report on "Trade, Growth and Jobs" that: "Openness has historically gone hand in hand with better economic performance, in both developed and developing economies, creating new opportunities for workers, consumers and firms around the globe and helping to lift millions out of poverty. Raising barriers to trade, on the other hand, is not only a costly and an ineffective policy option, but it can also be anti-poor, penalizing most those it aims to protect.""

Trade key to hegemony- Signals our interest in maintaining powerRobert, Zoellick, served as president of the World Bank Group, U.S. trade representative and deputy secretary of state, January, 14

“Leading From the Front on Free Trade,” The Wall Street Journal, Factiva, (accessed 5/8/16)The U.S. is also combining geoeconomics with geopolitics by negotiating a Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) with the European Union. Together, TPP and TTIP could forge modern trade and investment rules with major economies of western and eastern Eurasia. To offer opportunities for global trade liberalization, the U.S. is also negotiating in the World Trade Organization freer trade for services businesses and a Digital Economy compact that would update the successful Information Technology Agreement of the 1990s. These openings would be especially valuable for middle-income economies that want to boost productivity and reach high incomes through more competitive service and information industries.¶ The economic record of America's free-trade agreements argues for expansion. America's free-trade partners account for about 45% of all U.S. exports, even though their economies amount to only 10% of global GDP. On average, in the first five years of a new free-trade agreement, U.S. exports grew three to four times as rapidly as U.S. exports to others. The U.S. has a trade surplus with its 20 free-trade partners -- in manufacturing, agriculture, and services -- instead of the large deficit it runs with the world.¶ These trade agreements serve principally to bring down the barriers of other countries, because U.S. restrictions are already relatively low. U.S. free-trade agreements are also comprehensive -- covering not only manufacturing and almost all agriculture, but also services, government procurement and transparency, investment and intellectual property, as well as dispute resolution. These trade agreements encourage others to move toward greater compatibility with the U.S. economy and legal framework . ¶ Republicans have provided most of the votes in Congress for free-trade accords in the past. Here is why: The deals cut taxes on trade. They expand individual freedom, consumer choice and opportunities for innovation. They reduce governmental barriers. They boost the private sector. They enhance the rule of law and foster civil society. ¶ An active trade agenda also signals America's interest in the rest of the world at a time others are worried about U.S. withdrawal. Free trade boosts development and economic reformers around the world, while supporting U.S. growth. For much of the

L - New Spending (Independents) New spending upsets independents – makes them vote GOP. Gould and Walter, ’11 (Martin and Kathleen, “Ed Gillespie: GOP Will Sweep 2012, Voters Now See Obama in 'Over His Head', July 12, 2011, http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Gillespie-Obama-economy-leadership/2011/07/12/id/403350

“It will be very difficult for President Obama to be re-elected,” he said. “These independent voters . . . are not ready to blame him for making things worse. They do, however, recognize that he hasn’t made things better. “They see it more as sins of omission, that he took his eye off the ball and hasn’t focused on the economy. They see it as a failure of leadership in many ways. “It’s a real danger sign for any president when some of your past voters think that you’re in over your head.” Voters in the focus groups mainly still give Obama a positive job approval rating but believe he spent too much of his first two years in office concentrating on healthcare instead of jobs and the economy, Gillespie said. But Gillespie warned Republicans that efforts to repeal Obamacare also will be seen as a distraction unless the party couches it the right way. “There’s a need for Republicans to educate voters that there’s a direct connection between the enactment of the Obama healthcare bill with its punitive mandates, and the job-killing impact of that. “If we repeal Obamacare, we will help unleash job creation in the economy. But we need to make that connection more clear to independent voters,” he said. Independents are very concerned about government spending, Gillespie said. “They are not in favor of any blank check when it comes to raising the debt ceiling. They want to see reforms made and spending cuts made before any increase in the debt ceiling, they don’t want to see business as usual,” he said. “They see it as a huge disconnect between Washington, D.C., and their daily lives. When I run up against the limit on my credit card, I don’t just get to say I’ll increase the limit by $2,000, I have to cut back on my spending and change my habits. “In Washington, they don’t seem to have those kind of rules and it’s very frustrating to these voters.”

L - New Spending (Youth) New spending causes youth voters to go Republican—they’re key to the electionJordan, 7/25 (Elise, New York–based writer and commentator, director for communications in the National Security Council in 2008–09, speechwriter for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, “Obama’s Young Ex-Fans”, National Review Online, 7/25/11, http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/272576/obama-s-young-ex-fans-elise-jordan)

Political campaigns have historically discounted the importance of the youth vote — for good reason, generally, as young voters have tended not to show up on Election Day. Obama has changed that dynamic, perhaps permanently. The Millennial generation, meaning 18-to-29-year-olds — whom I wrote about a few weeks back — mattered in the 2008 election because Obama’s campaign recognized and exploited them. His campaign team engaged them through ground-breaking use of social media and grassroots outreach. It worked. Youth voted for Obama by a margin of 2 to 1, and 3 million more new voters visited the polls than in 2004. The Millennials accounted for 18 percent of the vote, and it was the third consecutive presidential election with increased youth turnout. Young voters in 2008 were attracted to Obama as a symbol — no one knew exactly what he stood for, but voting for him sure did feel good. Nearly three years later, many of them are increasingly disgusted to learn that he apparently doesn’t stand for much. What’s his position again on gay marriage? On Afghanistan? On Iraq? Health care? The skyrocketing debt? They care little about having a symbolic leader when they can’t find jobs. The Hope and Change he promised have long since become a punch line. When Obama spoke at the University of Maryland on Friday, student Jerome Lincolns explained how his attitude toward the president had shifted since Obama last visited the campus in 2009. “He’s like a new car: First it’s really awesome, and then you realize it’s a lot like the other cars,” Lincolns told USA Today. Last month, a youth-advocacy group called Generation Opportunity released a bunch of very telling statistics. Headed up by a former Bush-administration official, Paul Conway, the group polled 600 likely voters in the Millennial age group. My key take-away from their findings: It’s the Obama economy, stupid. Although young voters were embraced by the Obama campaign, they haven’t felt the same love from the Obama administration. Almost three-quarters of those surveyed by Generation Opportunity say the current administration fails to serve their generation. Less than a third approve of the president’s approach to youth unemployment. Over three-quarters have already put off, or expect to put off, a major life change or purchase because of the poor economy. Just under half are waiting to buy a home, and 27 percent are waiting to go back to school. Around one-quarter are delaying starting a family, and 18 percent are holding off on marriage. Republican insiders I’ve spoken to in recent days almost all seem resigned to an Obama victory. That’s understandable, but not pre-ordained. All you have to do is look at those numbers from Generation Opportunity. The youth are feeling pretty dismal about the direction of Obama’s America. More than half aren’t confident that America will be the global leader in ten years. More important, they overwhelmingly view out-of-control spending and debt as the biggest threat facing America. Almost three-quarters want to see government spending reduced and do not support raising taxes. These positions sound — gasp! — Republican. So Obama’s problem with this core constituency is an opportunity for the GOP. An opportunity — but not a slam-dunk. The youth voters are overwhelmingly moderate and issues-oriented. However, as Margaret Hoover pointed out in her new book, American Individualism, voting patterns tend to be set after three presidential elections. For about a third of the Millennial generation, this decisive third election will be the 2012 race. It’s going to be a very tough fight. Obama is going to have a record war chest. And Republican strategists are rightly worried about a primary season that could continue into next May, which would leave the eventual nominee weakened. But he or she might be able to find bounce in the younger generation. I’ll be honest: President Untrendy is still going to seem a lot cooler than any nominee we choose. There’s no point in trying to out-hipster the man (when we went for “energy” last time, we got Sarah Palin). That doesn’t mean we should cede the Millennial battlefield. What it does means is that we must keep the message simple and focused, and we must talk directly to the young voters. We know what they want, and we know Republicans can deliver it better than Democrats. Targeting young professionals and canvassing college students — people among whom the economic anxiety of the past two years is particularly acute, and who face the highest barriers to employment — should be a main focus of the Republican effort. Trendy has never paid the bills, and this time around it might not get that many votes, either.

L-Govt spending upopular-protests prove Morrow 4/15 – (Alison, “Tea Partiers protest government spending, mobilize for 2012 election,” ABC Action News, April 15, 2011, http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/news/region_tampa/tea-partiers-protest-government-spending,-mobilize-for-2012-election)

TAMPA, Fla. - Tea Party members rallied across the state of Florida on the federal tax holiday to protest what they call government over-spending and political games in Washington. Tampa's rally, held in the parking lots north of Raymond James Stadium, drew about 300 people. Sixten Larsen staked out a seat in the middle of the lot by himself, an hour before the rally began. While Larsen focused on finding the best seat, organizers hoped the rally would be one of their best efforts at mobilizing tea partiers, especially as the 2012 election approaches. People carried signs around with messages like, "Stop Bankrupting America." Even the portable bathrooms had signs on them. One stated, "IRS: For Deposit Only."

***Impacts – Republican Win Bad***

# - Laundry List Republican budgets would cut critical investments in education, science, clean energy, transportation, and food safety- only makes deficit problems worse and allows for increased threats from disease and foreign competitionVan Hollen 4/11- (Congressman Chris, “ The Republican Budget Resolution: The Wrong Choice for America ” Summary and Analysis of the House Budget Committee‐reported Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution, April 11, 2011, http://democrats.budget.house.gov/doc-library/FY2012/04112011-summaryandanalysisoftherepublicanresolution.pdf)

…By eliminating our ability to “Make it in America” and grow jobs Costs American jobs Makes deep cuts in critical national investments, including education, science, transportation and clean energy Cuts education for children and raises college costs for nearly 10 million students Costs American jobs – Republicans’ claims about the impact of their policies on jobs are based on Heritage Foundation models that predicted inaccurately that the tax cuts pushed by President Bush would create millions of new jobs. In fact, the Economic Policy Institute estimates that the Republican budget’s Medicaid cuts would cause the loss of 2.1 million jobs over the next five years, most in the private sector. The budget resolution repeats and continues the steep and immediate spending cuts Republicans voted for in H.R. 1 , cuts that economists asserted would cost hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s, estimates that 700,000 jobs could be lost as a result of just the spending cuts in H.R. 1. Even Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke estimated that a couple of hundred thousandHouse Budget Committee Democratic Staff April 11, 2011 Page 5 jobs could be lost due just to the 2011 spending cuts in H.R. 1. With 24 million workers currently unemployed or underemployed, we cannot afford to lose more jobs. Republicans’ inflated estimates of likely job gains are based on Heritage Foundation models that were wildly inaccurate in predicting that the tax cuts pushed by President Bush would create millions of new jobs; those models forecast that between 2001 and 2008, the economy would add an extra 6.5 million jobs, instead of the reality that the economy lost 650,000 private sector jobs under President Bush. Slashes research – The budget also takes a swipe at research funding in science, health, and other areas. Younger researchers and new projects are likely to bear the brunt of funding cuts, meaning these cuts would undermine the development of the next generation of researchers, harming America’s long ‐ term global competitiveness . Boom and bust cycles are wasteful and inefficient strategies for funding science. Sustained, predictable funding for research will maximize the return on this investment in our nation’s future. Neglects investments in research that saves lives, creates jobs, and keeps America competitive – The budget builds on Republicans’ decision earlier this year to slash $1.6 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This failure to invest will do serious damage to critical biomedical research, slowing our progress against cancer, diabetes, and other life ‐ threatening diseases that today account for a significant share of the total health costs that are a major driver of our long‐term fiscal concerns. Countries that better understand the importance of public investment in innovation will gain a competitive advantage over the United States if Congress continues to raid the NIH budget to achieve short ‐ term deficit reduction. I n addition, the budget reduces funding for research programs in the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, and NASA by almost $4.0 billion, limiting support for critical basic research. The federal government is a significant source of basic research funding, filling a gap in private sector investment. Support in this area helps to ensure that American companies are able to remain competitive in the global economy. Undermines the development of new energy sources – As gasoline prices soar past $4 per gallon, the Republican budget slashes funding for development of renewable energy sources by 60 percent below the 2010 levels. Republicans voted to cut 2011 funding for the Department of Energy by $1.3 billion in H.R. 1, and the budget resolution reduces 2012 appropriations to develop new energy sources by at least another $2.1 billion. The budget assumes increased domestic oil drilling but drastically cuts back on research and development of new energy sources, making America’s energy future increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. Eliminating funding for burgeoning renewableHouse Budget Committee Democratic Staff April 11, 2011 Page 6 energy sources places American families and businesses at the mercy of foreign oil. As the past year has demonstrated, volatile prices and an uncertain supply of oil are a drain on the economy. Cuts education and job training by 25 percent – The Republican budget cuts funding for education, job training, and social services over ten years by more than 25 percent below levels needed to maintain services at their current level. The budget makes food assistance and housing aid for the poor contingent upon working or job training, but then it consolidates job training programs and cuts the funding, pointing to existing colleges as a source for training. But then it cuts college aid. Pell grants – The budget reduces Pell grants back to the 2008 level, undermining the cornerstone of federal assistance that helps ensure that low ‐ income students have the opportunity to get a college degree. The budget not only cuts the maximum grant – the Republicans stated that it would be reduced to $5,000 but the budget does not appear to provide nearly enough funding to support even that level – but also

repeal the guaranteed Pell grant increases that Democrats fought hard to enact last year. Elementary and secondary education – Republicans already voted to cut education funding for 2011 by 15 percent in H.R. 1, a $10.5 billion cut that will cost thousands of teaching jobs and eliminate education services to children across the country. The Republican budget resolution further cuts education every year, quickly reaching annual cuts of more than 25 percent below current levels that will harm education for our children now and the quality of our future workforce, as well. Special education and Title I grants for low‐income schools account for 29 percent of the funding in this budget category, and are likely to face these steep cuts. Weakens infrastructure – Building off of the $1 billion cut to transit programs – including the important New Starts program – approved by Republicans in H.R. 1, the budget resolution further cuts transportation investments by more than $29 billion (about one third) in 2012, just as workers, families and businesses are struggling with rising gas prices and need access to alternative forms of transportation. America's engineers grade the country's roads and public transportation with a "D." The typical commuter pays an annual congestion tax of $800 in wasted time and fuel due to road conditions. As Congress works to approve a new multi ‐ year highway and transit program, the Republican budget withdraws about $318 billion in resources from highway, transit, and other transportation initiatives over the next ten years, divesting in America’s infrastructure, worsening the maintenance and performance of our transportation system, and reducing jobs and our quality of life. House Budget Committee Democratic Staff April 11, 2011 Page 7 Disregards police and firefighters – Republicans proposed drastic cuts to local law enforcement and first responder programs in H.R. 1, including more than $800 million in cuts to the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program and Firefighter Assistance Grants. The Republican budget likewise abandons these critical programs for 2012, slashing $4.2 billion (27 percent) from current levels in the category that funds firefighters and $9.6 billion (18 percent) from current levels in the funding that includes the COPS program. …By shredding health security at the expense of working families and vulnerable populations Repeals the Affordable Care Act, denying health insurance for more than 30 million Americans Imposes the majority of cuts on people of modest means. The Republican “Reverse Robin Hood” budget makes deep cuts in Medicaid, essentially dismantling the program by converting it into block grants that will not keep pace with need, and also makes deep cuts to SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) Repeals health care reform and dismantles Medicaid – The Republican budget resolution repeals most of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, which Congress enacted a year ago to hold insurance companies accountable and extend coverage to more than 30 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. But the majority party is not satisfied with taking away this health coverage; it goes further by dismantling the existing Medicaid program and converting it into a block grant. By design, the new block grant will save about $771 billion for the federal budget by failing to keep up with rising health care costs so that over time, the federal share of Medicaid will cover a smaller and smaller portion of health costs incurred by the low‐income children, families, senior citizens, and disabled individuals who depend on this program. Republicans have portrayed block‐granting Medicaid as a way to give state governors more flexibility to manage the program’s costs. But states already have a great deal of management flexibility. The significant and growing loss of federal support would leaveHouse Budget Committee Democratic Staff April 11, 2011 Page 8 states with an unappetizing menu of options: cut critical health services for seniors, disabled individuals or children; curtail eligibility or establish waiting lists; reduce payments to providers; or increase state spending to make up for the lost federal support. Targets its cuts on services that help low‐income families – The Republican budget targets its deepest spending cuts to services that help the country’s neediest. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has estimated that two thirds of the Republican budget’s programmatic spending cuts – $2.9 trillion of a total of $4.3 trillion – are to programs that serve people of limited means. The majority of the savings are a result of block‐granting Medicaid and repealing the Affordable Care Act’s assistance to help low‐income families get health coverage. Limits SNAP (Food Stamp) assistance to needy families – Similarly, the resolution proposes to turn SNAP into a block grant. It assumes large savings from the proposal by discouraging states from adding eligible people to their rolls and making benefits contingent on work or job training. States will have to choose between cutting benefits to some households or creating waiting lists for needy families. Undermines efforts to keep the food supply safe – House Republicans voted earlier this year to cut current funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) by $241 million below the 2010 level, and their budget resolution perpetuates this inadequate funding. This decision denies the resources necessary to carry out the Food Safety Modernization Act, which became law in January and allows the FDA for the first time to require that food manufacturers implement procedures to prevent food safety problems at their facilities. Failure to make food safety a priority squanders the opportunity to prevent problems before they occur. The societal and health costs of foodborne illness are an estimated $152 billion annually. These costs will get worse under the Republican budget. A failure to invest in a strong food safety program harms the economy by undermining consumer confidence. Sales fall for all food producers, not just the ones found to have problems. Abandons Americans struggling with the housing crisis – The budget resolution does not offer any solutions to the ongoing housing and foreclosure crisis. Its priorities include eliminating the few, limited programs we have to stabilize communities hard hit by the housing crisis – the Home Affordable Modification Program, the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and emergency mortgage assistance. These cuts not only injure the working families who may have fallen prey to exotic mortgages, but also those families whose home values have plummeted because of the at‐risk

homeowners around them. In addition, the resolution cuts back on housing assistance for vulnerable populations, potentially pushing them to homelessness. While ignoring solutions for the housing crisis, the budget undermines the agencies responsible for protecting consumers from the big banks and financial institutions that created and traded in these indecipherable products. Republicans sought over $100 million in cuts in HR 1 to theHouse Budget Committee Democratic Staff April 11, 2011 Page 9 Wall Street watchdogs – the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Securities Exchange Commission, and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – responsible for making sure the big banks and financiers play by the rules. This resolution deepens these cuts, defunding and eliminating the important steps taken in the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that work to prevent a future housing and financial crisis. Denies housing aid to homeless veterans – Republicans voted in H.R. 1 to eliminate $75 million for housing and supportive services for homeless veterans for 2011, and the Republican resolution continues that low level of funding for 2012 and beyond. Veterans are more likely than the general public to be homeless. Since 2008, approximately 30,000 veterans have been given access to rental assistance and case management and clinical services to help rebuild their lives. This funding cut will deny those helpful services to 10,000 veterans each year.

# - Iran A GOP victory guarantees an Iran invasion and Middle East instability. Curiel, ’10 (Jonathan, Professional Journalist, Lived in Pakistan & Iran for part of life, “What just might happen if Obama loses in 2012”, Jul. 28 2010 http://trueslant.com/jonathancuriel/2010/07/28/what-just-might-happen-if-obama-loses-in-2012/ Less than four months from now, the mid-term elections will determine if the Democrats lose control of the Senate and their ability to set the national agenda. The November balloting will also lay the foundation for President Obama’s next two years in office – and his re-election campaign. Any number of scenarios could undermine Obama in 2012. If (God forbid) a 9/11-style attack hits the United States that summer, or, say, the economy goes into a deep tailspin, then Obama will become the first one-term president since George H.W. Bush. In Obama’s wake, the Republican Piranha who’ve been circling the White House since 2008 (Palin, Romney, et al.) will feast on the Democrats’ political carcass. Here are three scenarios: ** President Whitman: After narrowly beating Jerry Brown for the California governorship in 2010, former eBay CEO Meg Whitman gets drafted for the 2012 presidential campaign and reluctantly accepts – then steamrolls her way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Whitman’s appeal – the first woman Republican to head the ticket; her success in Silicon Valley; her (anti-Palinesque) ability to speak coherently about the economy, foreign affairs, and her vision for America – makes her the surprising choice for independents and conservative liberals who helped springboard Obama in 2008. Whitman’s running mate, Newt Gingrich, secures her standing among Conservatives, especially in the South, and – like Joe Biden in 2008 with Obama – he reassures a potentially jittery public that his ticket has the necessary experience. ** War in Iran: The Republicans’ ascension marks the return of chickenhawk diplomacy. Instead of the Obama administration’s reasoned approach to Iran, the new administration relies on all-or-nothing antagonism, leading to the third Gulf War in two decades. What ensues are thousands of new military deaths, a dangerously destabilized Middle East, and an oil crisis that shocks Western economies for years. As in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. tries to shepherd in a friendlier government, but now all three countries – connected geographically, religiously and historically – become the world’s leading front for insurgency against the United States.

# - Economy GOP control hurts the economy- offers tax breaks for the wealthy while cutting support for lower classesSun Sentinel 7/14- (Ken Keaton, “Shame on GOP for its immoral goals” July 14, 2011, http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/fl-forum-debt-ceiling-0714-20110714,0,6445435.story)

The country raised our debt limit seven times during the George W. Bush presidency, with not a peep of protest from conservative lawmakers. Now, it's being portrayed as the worst threat the nation faces. Those same lawmakers had no objection when Bush inherited a balanced budget with a surplus, and proceeded to wreck it with two unnecessary wars, mismanagement of Medicare, tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent and tax breaks for transnational corporations. Now, they are ready to cut support for the elderly, the sick, the poor; to cut support for public workers — teachers, police, firemen — to make up for our national debt. But any talk of tax increases on the super-rich and the transnational corporations is off the table. The gap in income between the top 2 percent and the rest of the nation is wider than it has been since the gilded age of the robber barons. Exxon/Mobil for two years running has been the most profitable corporation in the history of the world. Last year, GE and a number of other top transnational corporations paid less tax that you have in the change in your pocket right now. But take heart, guys. The GOP will protect you! Your corporate jets are safe while the rest of us try to survive $4-a-gallon gas. But if you're not in that august group, watch out. We'll be the ones who have to make up the deficit. The GOP took over the House, along with several state governments, last November with a unified message: "Where are the jobs?" But when they took power, what happened? Not one jobs bill from the House — though these purported advocates of limited government passed a variety of bills aimed at controlling women's bodies. State governments across the nation have cut support for jobs and infrastructure projects in favor of — wait for it — tax cuts for the wealthy and tax breaks for corporations. And they have tried to blame their economic woes on greedy teachers. Really? Mitch McConnell has said more than once that his primary objective is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. With all the challenges and problems our nation faces, this is his, and his party's, most important goal. Does anyone wonder why no one Republican presidential candidate stands out from the rest? Since Obama took office, their response has been to block and oppose any initiative from Obama, solely because it was from Obama. They have failed to articulate an alternative vision beyond a reflexive restatement of Groucho Marx: "Whatever it is, I'm against it." Is it any wonder why none in the pack has genuinely caught the nation's hopes and aspirations? It's time to say out loud what has long been suspected: I accuse you, GOP, of deliberately trying to wreck the nation's economy in hopes of blaming President Obama so you can take power in 2012. And if the process hurts the poor, the elderly, the sick, the middle class, who cares? Take a look at Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio — and Florida — and cringe when you see their plans in action. Minnesota is just a dry run to see if they can successfully shut down government and blame it on the Democrats. Your behavior is beyond irresponsible. It's immoral.

# - Prolif/Terror Attack Republicans want to cut funding for NNSA- leads to nuclear terrorist attacksEasley 3/25- political columnist and the politics editor at 411mania.com, Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, chief editor at politicusa.com (Jason, “Rachel Maddow Calls Out The GOP For Budget Cuts That Enable al-Qaeda” March 25, 2011, http://www.politicususa.com/en/rachel-maddow-gop-al-qaeda)

On her MSNBC program, Rachel Maddow took on the hypocrisy of a Republican congressional leadership that talks tough on national security but is risking giving al-Qaeda nuclear weapons with their budget cuts. Maddow said, “Republicans really have proposed making it $500 million easier for terrorists to get nuclear material.” Here is the video from MSNBC: Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Maddow began, “There is a long, dirty history in American politics of using terrifying threats about terrorism to pursue some other totally unrelated political goal. She cited Rush Limbaugh claiming that a “Ground Zero Mosque” is a victory for the terrorists, Jim DeMint claiming that unionized TSA screeners is a victory for terrorists, and George W. Bush saying in 2006 that a vote for Democrats is victory for the terrorists. She then discussed how Republicans upped the ante by using the threat of a mushroom cloud to justify and scare the nation into supporting the Iraq invasion. She pointed out that there is a small US agency that is charge of locking down loose nuclear material, “America’s fear mongering history about the nuclear end of the world is kind of too bad because it is not fear mongering to talk about the nuclear end of the world if you are actually working directly to stop the nuclear end of the world. That is the job of one part of the United States government. It’s an obscure office in the Department of Energy called the National Nuclear Security Administration. They lock down unprotected loose nuclear material around the world to keep it off the black market and out of terrorist hands, which without being hysterical about it, does seem like an important job when you consider that groups like al Qaeda have said over and over again they want to buy nuclear material so they could use it in a terrorist attack and there is evidence they have tried to buy it on the black market.” Rachel Maddow continued, “There is part of the US government that finds the most vulnerable nuclear material in the world and secures it, so if you’re worried about this sort of thing the appropriate response is, good I’m glad we’re doing that. After that agency locked down 111 pounds of nuclear material in Ukraine around Christmas time we hosted the head of the nuclear administration here on this show and christened him the undersecretary for saving the world.” The MSNBC host highlighted the GOP’s proposed budget that would jeopardize national security, “Now the Republicans in Congress want to strip the funding for that agency. Even though they said they wouldn’t make any national security cuts, they want to cut $550 million from the agency that locks down unprotected loose nuclear material to keep it off the black market around the world which means that for what may be the first time in US history an ad that starts this way is actually true and is not fear mongering. ‘What I am about to tell you sounds crazy but it’s true. Speaker John Boehner is making it easier for terrorists to get nuclear weapons.’” Rachel Maddow continued, “Sounds crazy? Also true. It sounds like a generic be afraid ad from the Bush administration era. In this case, Republicans really have proposed making it $500 million easier for terrorists to get nuclear material. That was the first line of a new ad voiced by retired Lieutenant General Robert Gard part of a counter proliferation group running these ads against the nuke terrorism cuts in key congressional districts.” After playing the ad, Maddow said, “The ads are targeting not just John Boehner, but Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Hal Rogers and Thad Cochran, all elected Republicans who are supporting this big cut. This big cut to the part of the US government that actually works on that whole smoking mushroom cloud problem instead of just freaking you out about it to accomplish some other unrelated political thing. We do not have a word in the English language that means the opposite of fear mongering but if we ever do have that word, this will be the example next to that word in the political science dictionary.” In this case it is appropriate to use the past decade of Republican rhetoric against them. Republican congressional leaders are literally jeopardizing the nation’s security in order to shave $500 million off of the budget, in an ideological attack on what they consider to be big government. This is more evidence that the Republican Party has now moved so far to the right side of the political spectrum that they view all federal government as big government, even when that agency is performing a function that is vital to national security. Unlike the GOP claims of mushroom clouds over America that were used to justify invading Iraq, the threat of al-Qaeda getting nuclear material/weapons and deploying them somewhere in the world is very real. It is one of their stated goals. The hypocrisy is that these same Republicans who puff out their chests and talk tough about keeping America safe are the same individuals who

stand poised to sacrifice national security on the alter right wing ideological purity The same John Boehner who once said, “During the 1990s, world leaders looked at the mounting threat of terrorism, looked up, looked away, and hoped the problem would go away,” is now poised to look the threat of a nuclear enabled al-Qaeda in the eye, and aid in furthering their goal of carrying out a catastrophic nuclear attack. Of course, we shouldn’t really be surprised, because Mitch McConnell took the same not my job attitude towards capturing Bin Laden during the Clinton administration, “Domestic terrorism is not a cause we have to fight or a project we need to fund. We are not interested in capturing bin Laden. Even though he has been offered to us. We are not the world’s policemen. It’s not our job to clean up other countries messes or arrest its bad guys.” The conclusion to be drawn here is that Republican views on national security are malleable and wholly contingent on whether not they control the White House. It is this kind of valueless shape shifting that leads many Americans especially those on the left to speculate that Republicans are intentionally trying to make America less safe in order to undermine the Obama administration. It isn’t like they haven’t used national security as a political weapon before, or must we be reminded of the elevated terror alert levels before the elections of 2002, 2004, 2006, and 2008?By their own actions, Republicans have given credibility to the perception that they treat national security as a means to an electoral end. The consequences of allowing Republican neglect and nonchalance about national security to go unchecked could be, to use the language of the GOP, a mushroom cloud over New York, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C. or some city in between. This is why Republican incompetence must be stopped before it enables the realization of al-Qaeda’s nuclear ambitions and dreams.

Terrorists are seeking nuclear materials to use against the US- GOP would undermine policies that are key to prevent proliferationSeip 3/31- retired lieutenant general of the U.S. Air Force (Norman, “Anti-terror programs worth the cost to avoid loose nukes” March 31, 2011, http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2011/03/anti-terror_programs_worth_the.html)

Osama bin Laden has said he considers it a religious obligation to obtain nuclear weapons. By Norman Seip As the Arab world approaches a significant turning point in its history, on a more global scale, we are at a critical crossroads. One path leads toward a world in which the threat of nuclear terror increases dangerously. The other path leads toward a safer tomorrow, secured by actively stopping the proliferation of dangerous nuclear materials. And in this second scenario, New Jersey’s elected leaders can play an important deciding role. For weeks now, our representatives in Washington have been debating House Republicans’ shortsighted FY 2011 budget. These GOP members have proposed major cuts in government spending, and no doubt, there are cuts to be made. But slashing funding for programs that keep nuclear materials under control is the ultimate example of being penny wise and pound foolish. Republicans want to cut crucial programs — which prevent dangerous nuclear materials from falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists — by 22 percent, more than $600 million. There are two simple reasons to support these nonproliferation programs — they have a proven track record of working and they help keep Americans safe. Let’s look at the facts. Since 2009, the Global Threat Reduction Initiative has secured enough vulnerable material in unstable locations around the globe to make 120 nuclear weapons. The Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program has deactivated more than 7,500 nuclear warheads. It’s hard to imagine an investment that pays bigger dividends when it comes to improving our national security. These programs will be severely hampered if the proposed cuts are approved. This past year, efforts to secure vulnerable materials were more successful than ever. In September, nearly 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium was removed from Poland — the single largest removal in history. In Kazakhstan, enough material to make 775 bombs was removed from BN-350 reactor. These programs are doing their job, but there is much hard work left to do. The global stockpile of nuclear materials is large enough for 120,000 nuclear bombs. This material is concentrated in unstable regions of the world, notably former Soviet satellite states. There is a broad bipartisan consensus that efforts to lock down unsecured nuclear material must be strengthened, not weakened. Experts including George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn have uniformly recommended increasing efforts to reduce the amount of nuclear material around the world that could fall into the hands of our enemies. It’s no secret that terrorists intent on harming America are seeking nuclear weapons. In January 2010, the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and Terrorism warned that al Qaeda is actively seeking nuclear materials to use against America. Osama bin Laden has said he considers it a religious obligation to obtain nuclear weapons. There is little doubt that if al Qaeda obtains a nuclear weapon, the terrorist organization will use it. During my 35 years in the Air Force, I commanded organizations ranging from 350 to more than 33,000 airmen and made many critical decisions to ensure our nation’s security. I

know the importance of cutting off threats at their source. Addressing threats before they become potentially unsolvable problems is the essence of good policy. And that’s why it’s critical that Democratic Sens. Robert Menendez and Frank Lautenberg, and Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-11th Dist.) reject proposed cuts to anti-terror nonproliferation programs. The programs threatened by these cuts have been the unsung heroes in the broader battle to prevent terror; their silent effectiveness should not be taken for granted. To tackle the security challenges of tomorrow, nonproliferation funding needs to be strengthened today. Proliferation knows no borders. Unsecured loose nuclear materials in Kazakhstan pose a direct threat to citizens in Keansburg. That’s why the fight for this funding is critical. Menendez and Lautenberg have strong track records of standing up for America’s security interests. And Frelinghuysen is the chairman of the House Energy and Water committee, which will play a critical role in deciding which cuts ultimately go through. All three of these members of Congress should stand strong against misguided efforts to cut funds for programs that undeniably stamp out the threat of nuclear terror. Norman Seip is a Middlesex County native who retired as a lieutenant general of the U.S. Air Force.

Republicans want to cut NNSA funding that’s key to prevent terror attacks- undermines nonproliferation programs Kimball 2/12- Executive Director of the Arms Control Association (ACA) and has worked in the field of arms control for over two decades (Daryl G., “House Budget Proposal Would Cut NNSA Nonproliferation Programs” February 12, 2011, http://armscontrolnow.org/2011/06/16/nnsa-weapons-complex-funding-only-in-washington-is-more-considered-%E2%80%9Cless%E2%80%9D/)

On Monday the Barack Obama Administration will roll out its budget request for the next fiscal year (2012). Those numbers will have a major impact on various programs related to the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) activities to maintain and refurbish existing nuclear weapons and upgrade the nuclear weapons complex, as well as NNSA initiatives to reduce the threat that nuclear weapons-usable material might be lost, stolen, or

# - A2

A2 U-TRUMPWILL WIN

Boychuk, 2016 June 3, 2016 Ben (Boychuk associate editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal)“Why Trump will win the White House” : http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article81455472.html#storylink=cpy

Donald Trump will win the 2016 presidential election. Not “might” win. Not “could win under the following circumstances.” He’s going to win as surely as the sun rises in the east, as certainly as high tide follows low, and as definitively as Steph Curry laid waste to the Oklahoma Thunder’s defense.What am I, clairvoyant? Of course not. Just as it’s wise to never say “never” – except maybe #NeverTrump – it’s never a good idea for somebody to make unqualified predictions in print about unknowable future events.Bold claims had better be backed by solid reasons. Although Trump is running nearly even with Hillary Clinton in national polls, the Vegas bookmakers remain optimistic about Clinton’s chances. The online betting site PaddyPower.com currently puts the odds of Clinton winning at 1 in 2, with Trump at 7 to 4. Bernie Sanders is a 20-to-1 long shot.Would I be willing to put my money where my mouth is? Don’t be ridiculous. Gambling is a sin! But I wouldn’t bet against a Trump victory.Here are five reasons why:His rhetoric resonates. (Everyone knows that Trump is an outrage machine. What few people appreciate is that Trump is a well-calibrated outrage machine. He has fastened on to issues that other candidates couldn’t discuss without sounding like pandering flip-floppers.Trump has departed from Republican orthodoxy on health care, taxes, free trade and immigration. Often he seems to contradict himself. He has said everything is negotiable – especially the outrageous things he’s said.Will he build a wall on the southern U.S. border and make Mexico pay for it? Maybe, maybe not. But he’s opened up the discussion like no one has before.Trump has run a non-traditional campaign and defied all expectations and expert predictions so far. Meantime, Clinton has rebooted her campaign four or five times since April.“Trump’s selection of issues is part of his persuasion talents,” writes Scott Adams, the creator of “Dilbert” who has been blogging for months about the Trump phenomenon. “He was smart enough to pick the topics with the most emotional power. It was intentional.”“Keep in mind,” Adams adds, “that every candidate had the same options that Trump did, but only Trump chose correctly.” Adams says that is no accident: “The public just thinks it is.”By the way, Adams thinks Trump will win “in a landslide.”Most Republicans are falling in line.I’m a die-hard #NeverTrump guy, but I know I’m among a minority. Although some prominent Republican leaders have withheld their support, it’s clear that the GOP rank-and-file is rallying to the presumptive nominee. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, R-Wis., ended weeks of speculation and endorsed Trump, saying “the reality is, on the issues that make up our agenda, we have more common ground than disagreement.” A unified Republican Party is far more likely now. Democrats, meantime, are divided among dedicated Clinton supporters and Sanders’ cadres of bitter-enders. The Bernie voters tend to be millennials. Clinton may not be able to count on their support in November. Gotcha journalism doesn’t faze Trump. Oh, that Trump is such a thin-skinned baby! Did you see his “epic meltdown” during his news conference at Trump Tower last week? He kept berating the reporters for not doing their jobs. What a buffoon!At least, that’s what The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune and the crew on “Morning Joe” said.

What my friends in the media fail to understand is the great mass of would-be readers and viewers really, really don’t like us. They certainly don’t trust us. And so when Trump calls ABC News reporter Tom Llamas “a sleaze” and Llamas responds with pained indignation, who do you suppose wins that “Why am I a sleaze?” Llamas protested.“You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well,” Trump replied.Trump never apologizes and never backs down. The media may despise him, but voters despise the media more. That’s why he’s winning.Hillary follows his lead – badly.Trump has run a non-traditional campaign and defied all expectations and expert predictions so far. Meantime, Clinton has rebooted her campaign four or five times since April.Clinton doesn’t know how to respond to Trump. The campaign is peddling the catchphrase, “Love Trumps Hate.” But as Adams points out, that’s a terrible slogan. “Humans put greater cognitive weight on the first part of a sentence than the last part,” he writes. “This is a well-understood phenomenon. And the first part literally pairs LOVE and TRUMP.” That’s hardly her first misstep. In December, Clinton took a swipe at Trump’s “penchant for sexism” around the same time she announced that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, would be campaigning for her in New Hampshire.Trump slapped back. Hard. “If Hillary thinks she can unleash her husband, with his terrible record of women abuse, while playing the women’s card on me, she’s wrong!” Trump tweeted. Clinton had no answer for that. And she won’t have an answer for it when it comes time to debate.Trump will crush Clinton in the debates.People watched with a mixture of horror and amusement as Trump took apart his opponents during the Republican debates. Ted Cruz was supposed to be a debate champion in college. He couldn’t withstand Trump’s assaults. All Trump needed to do was repeat the nickname “Lyin’ Ted” over and over again until it stuck.A few months ago, Trump started referring to Clinton as “Crooked Hillary.” He’s preparing the rhetorical battle space.Also, Clinton is not a very good debater. People forget the way Barack Obama eviscerated her during the 2008 Democratic primaries. She does not do well in situations where she doesn’t have complete control. It’s why she prefers interviews to news conferences. Interviews are more predictable. Press conferences are free-for-alls.We’re a long way from the Lincoln-Douglas era, when people would sit and listen for hours to closely argued speeches. Trump is a master of the emotional appeal. He’s shown he has no compunction about attacking Clinton and her husband on their moral and ethical lapses, even as he’s fighting lawsuits accusing him of fraud and dodging questions about his past infidelities and current net worth.In a contest between two shameless politicians, the one with the least shame wins. Get ready for President Trump.

A2 L-Clinton Bad for economy Moore, 2016 (Stephen, Staff writer) http://townhall.com/columnists/stephenmoore/2016/03/22/hillary-clinton-is-bad-for-stocks-and-the-economy-n2137320Hillary Clinton Is Bad for Stocks and the Economy Mar 22, 2016 Clinton is 100 percent predictable. She is going to raise tax rates; she is going to spend trillions more over the next decade; she is going to stop drilling for oil and gas and shut down our coal industry; she is going to double down on Obamacare; and she is going to wage war against the rich on Wall Street. Is that the certainty Wall Street is craving? Let's take taxes. Trump wants a 20 percent capital gains tax. Clinton wants a 46 percent capital gains tax. These are direct taxes on investors. What is the difference between these two policy courses? A share of stock is worth the discounted present value of the returns after tax. So let us assume a stock earns $10 a share. Under Clinton the stock's after-tax return is $5.54 a share. Under Trump the after-tax return is $8.00. This is an over-simplification, because Hillary would tax longer held stocks at a rate of 23.8 percent. But the stocks have a much higher return under Trump. But the corporate tax also has an effect on stock values. Clinton wants to keep the 35 percent rate. Trump wants a 15 percent rate. So under Clinton the government takes one-third of corporate profits, and under Trump the government takes one-sixth of the profits. It's true the effective tax rate is lower for many multinationals, but the broader point is obvious: Trump's tax plan is much, much better for stocks than Clinton's. By the way, Trump wants a lower estate tax -- another tax on stocks -- and Clinton wants a more confiscatory system. But stocks did phenomenally well under Hillary's husband, you say. True, but this isn't Bill Clinton's party anymore. Hillary is running as Bernie-lite, not Bill-lite. The days of the centrist Democrats are long past. Bill balanced budgets, cut spending, cut the capital gains tax and signed welfare reform. Hillary stands on the other side on all these issues.

.

A2-Clinton Disastrous for foreign policyRovere, 2016 The National Interest (http://nationalinterest.org)“Hillary Clinton’s Foreign-Policy Performance: The Worst. Ever.” Source URL (retrieved on July 4, 2016): http://nationalinterest.org/feature/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-performance-the-worst-ever-16436 Crispin Rovere is a member of the Australian Labor Party and previous convenor of the ACT ALP International Affairs Policy Committee. Formerly he was a PhD candidate at the ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre (SDSC) and previously worked in Secretariat of the Asia-Pacific Leadership Network for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, and published on nuclear policy.

As the general election heats up, Clinton supporters have been eager to tout the virtues of her foreign-policy experience relative to Donald Trump. And as a former Secretary of State and First Lady, no one questions Mrs Clinton’s bona fides in that regard.

There is just one problem. Foreign-policy stewardship over the past two decades has been the most cataclysmic for American interests abroad in the entire history of the Republic—and Clinton has been in favor of all the biggest mistakes. First, there was the Iraq War. Without question, it was the single greatest foreign policy catastrophe of the past 40 years. Undertaken without UN endorsement, with a justification that was totally wrong, Iraq fast became a strategic quagmire. De-Baathification destroyed the Iraqi state, gave rise to a Sunni insurgency, and cost thousands of American lives and trillions of dollars. Hillary Clinton voted for the war.

Meanwhile, in 2003 Iran offered the United States a grand bargain. Everything was on the table. Iran would dismantle its nascent nuclear program, assist the U.S. stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq, cease its support of proxy militants and even accept the existence of Israel. The Bush administration rejected it. Back then Iran had tested a single ten-centrifuge cascade, which increased to over nineteen thousand centrifuges by 2014. Under the 2015 nuclear deal that limit is now over five thousand centrifuges, which continue to enrich uranium and will be upgraded in less than eight years’ time.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was a cheerleader for those overthrowing governments friendly to the United States (such as in Egypt). These governments ended up being replaced with the Muslim Brotherhood, dictatorship and chaos. The Arab uprisings, combined with the ham-fisted withdrawal from Iraq, led to the formation of ISIS, which subsequently took over much of Iraq and Syria, extending its reach deep into the surrounding Arab states .

This includes Libya. Gaddafi had previously given up his WMD program and sought to reconstitute himself into the international system. The price he paid for this cooperation was severe. Relying on Clinton’s assurances, Russia abstained from UN Resolution 1973, enabling military intervention to protect civilians under the explicit understanding that this would not mean regime change.

Clinton immediately reneged on the deal (which I warned against at the time). NATO bombing led to Gaddafi’s overthrow in favor of ISIS-style militants. Later, four Americans including Ambassador Stevens were murdered at an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi on Clinton’s watch. Today Libya is a failed state. Obama has since labelled this his single greatest failure as president, a failure for which Clinton is largely responsible.

So much for the reset. In the wake of the Libya betrayal Russia became hostile and resurgent in Europe (albeit not merely because of it). After the Georgia conflict Russia reorganized its military, and began fielding new medium-range missiles in violation of the INF Treaty. In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea and fueled the Ukrainian civil war in open defiance of NATO and the United States. Obama’s response has been risible.

And then there’s Syria. In 2011 Secretary Clinton then repeatedly stated “Assad must go” (FYI six years on he’s still in power). Obama destroyed America’s credibility around the world by imposing a ‘redline’ on chemical weapons being used in Syria that he was never willing to enforce. In the end Obama had to be bailed out by Russia, who brokered a deal with Assad to have those weapons removed.

Most damning, however, is Clinton’s boast about how she strongly advocated arming Sunni rebels against Assad. Of course, ISIS later captured Mosul, seizing billions of dollars in U.S. military equipment anyhow.

While the United States was lurching from one failure to the next in the Middle East, massive challenges arose in Asia. North Korea has now completed four nuclear tests of increasing sophistication, and has made strides in long range ballistic missiles and SLBM technology. As a consequence, Obama bequeaths his successor a North Korea that will have the capability to conduct a nuclear strike on the United States within an eight-year term of office.

To underscore just how feeble the United States has become over the past decade and a half, consider this mind-boggling statistic: when George W. Bush went into Iraq, the U.S. economy was eight times larger than China’s. Today, China’s economy is about three-quarters that of the U.S. and will certainly eclipse it within a decade.

China is America’s greatest long-term challenge, and is fast reemerging as a global superpower that seeks to expel the United States from Asia. It commits cyber theft on an industrial scale, employs mercantilist trade practices and currency manipulation, and of course, is asserting its expansive territorial claims by force. China has dredged three thousand acres of new land in the South China Sea, and Obama has done nothing to stop them. The U.S. Navy is increasingly unable to operate safely in the region, while China’s military budget continues to grow at double digits almost every year.

No matter where you look, whether it’s Iran’s expansion in the Middle East, Russia’s aggression in Europe, nuclear proliferation in rogue states, or China’s bid for regional hegemony, the verdict is in—those running American foreign policy have been an ignominious disgrace on every possible front and in every conceivable respect, and Hillary Clinton has been central to that failure.

Others have accurately foreshadowed American foreign policy under a new Clinton presidency. In clear contrast, Trump is centered in realism. As Senator Jeff Sessions recently confirmed, Trump’s foreign policy resembles that of Henry Kissinger. And as I’ve previously explained, this approach is best able to meet America’s key challenges and restore its pre-eminence in the world (See ‘Trump, a Nixon-Kissinger realist’).

Along this path Trump has taken positive steps. He’s now met personally with Kissinger, and delivered a major foreign policy speech where he laid out a realist platform: be unafraid of bold reform where a changing global environment demands it; ensure scarce resources support a cohesive strategy; and exercise sober reflection with respect to past failures in order to avoid their repetition—Not what America has been doing in recent times!

Under Hillary Clinton America’s foreign policy establishment has developed a culture of failure without accountability. As Donald Trump has said:

It’s time to shake the rust off America’s foreign policy… I have to look for talented experts with new approaches and practical ideas, rather than surrounding myself with those who have perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.

Hillary Clinton represents precisely that continuity—something that America can no longer afford.

A2 Clinton against China Engagement TPP OPPOSITION PROVES

Johnson, 2016 (Dave, staff writer) May 10 http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35974-clinton-commits-no-tpp-fundamentally-rethink-trade-policies

Going into the West Virginia primary, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has come out in opposition to a "lame duck" vote on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). This takes her beyond her previous statements mildly opposing TPP. Clinton also made a strong statement criticizing our country's trade agreements in general.

As reported in The Hill, in "Clinton opposes TPP vote in the lame-duck session," Clinton replied to a questionnaire from the Oregon Fair Trade Campaign, which consists of more than 25 labor, environmental and human rights organizations. When asked, "If elected President, would you oppose holding a vote on the TPP during the 'lame duck' session before you take office?" she replied, "I have said I oppose the TPP agreement -- and that means before and after the election ."

A2 China Engagement popular-Global Trade proves

Pew 2013 , December (PEW RESEARCH GROUP) http://www.people-press.org/2013/12/03

But the public expresses no such reluctance about U.S. involvement in the global economy. Fully 77% say that growing trade and business ties between the United States and other countries are either very good (23%) or somewhat good (54%) for the U.S. Just 18% have a negative view. Support for increased trade and business connections has increased 24 points since 2008, during the economic recession. By more than two-to-one, Americans see more benefits than risks from greater involvement in the global economy. Two-thirds (66%) say greater involvement in the global economy is a good thing because it opens up new markets and opportunities for growth. Just 25% say that it is bad for the country because it exposes the U.S. to risk and uncertainty. Large majorities across education and income categories – as well as most Republicans, Democrats and independents – have positive views of increased U.S. involvement in the world economy.