Interactive Election Game: 2016 (TURN 5)

[NHI]

PAUL: I think we need to make it clear that those who are making the attacks against us are radical Muslim extremists who can't adapt to the modern world and think we still live in the 16th century, in my opinion the only way Islamophobia will stop growing is to defeat ISIS, don't let radicals enter, stop being so friendly to countries that finance terrorism and obviously leaving a clear message that while there are a big number of radical Muslims out there, who aren't necessarily the minority, there is still a lot of patriotic american Muslims.

If we defeat the terrorists like the ones from ISIS and prevent new ones from appearing I think people will look less to Muslims and associate them as terrorists, to defeat this terrorists we need to work with Russia, our allies and other countries who are willing to help, as well as the Kurds, to defeat them, to make Islamic terrorists not enter the country, we need to only allow the ones we know they're intentions to enter, to prevent new Islamic terrorist groups we need to stop deposing governments from other countries like we did in Iraq and like Marco and Warren want to do in Syria, by doing this we will make Syria unstable and allow new groups to appear, we all seen what they want to do but with another country, that was Iraq, and finally we need to stop being so friendly with Islamic terrorist supporters, like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and others...

By doing all this, radical Islamic terrorism will become smaller, people will associate less Islam with terrorism and Islamophobia will gradually become less and less relevant.

RUBIO:I want to thank you for that question Gorbah because you got it right about Islamophobia and Islamophobia is a shame. I'm proud to be endorsed by Khizr and Ghazala Khan who are the Pakistani American parents of U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, a Muslim, an American hero and a patriot who was killed during the Iraq War 12 years ago. We are all proud and thankful of his courage and service to our country inspired by his patriotism and his love for America. During his service in Iraq, Humayun Khan was inspecting a guard post near Baqubah when a taxicab approached quickly. After ordering his subordinates away, he ran toward the vehicle and was killed when the bomb with which it was fitted exploded. The car detonated before it could reach the installation gates or the nearby mess hall where hundreds of soldiers were eating. So he stopped terrorists from orchestrating a massive massacre and to kill hundreds of people. His service is another of the elements that represent the best of America.

Senator Warren and her campaign keep claiming that we are seeing Muslims as the enemy and that we believe that we are at war against Islam, but that is absolutely false and she knows that very well. We have never ever said or thought that all Muslims are the enemy. We have never said or thought that most of Muslims are the enemy. Our enemy is the dangerous and extremist minority called radical Islamic terrorism. And yet, just like President Obama, Senator Warren and Senator Sanders won't use the term « radical Islamic terrorism ». We need to define our enemies properly and see the connections between them so we can distinguish them from good Muslims, find radical Islamic terrorists and catch them. Because radical Islamic terrorists are killing much more Muslims than anyone else in the world. They are killing them because they are not sharing the same values and that is outrageous and barbaric.

These are the same extremists who attacked us in San Bernardino and Orlando, attacked our allies in Paris, Nice and Brussels and killed 3000 Americans on 9/11. So we need to go after them if we want to prevent further radical Islamic terrorist attacks against us and our allies. That requires increasing the FBI's counter-terrorism budget and our defense budget, reinforcing and modernizing our homeland security and our military, expanding our alliances, tracking and striking radical Islamic terrorists on their territory through military strength and arming the right groups in the Middle East through background checks on them.

It also includes working together with Muslims, who are not radicals. We need to work with Muslim nations like Jordan, the Saudis, the Gulf kingdoms, Egypt and Turkey in order to defeat ISIS, Al Qaida and all other jihadist groups. It will take a Sunni Arab movement to defeat them. Meanwhile, Congressman Paul wants to tear up our alliances, including NATO in which we have a Muslim nation ally like Turkey, which will kill opportunities to work with Muslim nations to fight radical Islamic terrorism because such a decision of shutting down our alliances will diminish our allies' trust towards us and make us as well as our allies, including our Muslim allies, easier targets for terrorists. We can't afford that. And so I think you can be correct without meaning to be politically correct. We are going to have to work with people of the Muslim faith even as Islam itself faces a serious crisis within it of radicalization.

[NHI]

Good evening. My question is, what specific tax provisions will you change to ensure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share in taxes?

RUBIO: Like I said, I'm the son of working-class immigrants and I was raised paycheck to paycheck and my parents did not have a chance to earn higher education. I understand what it means to live paycheck to paycheck. As we all know, the right way to grow this economy and to make our economy fair for all Americans is not to make rich people poorer but to make poor people richer. That requires making America the best place in the world to do business and to reduce the fiscal burden for all Americans, including the middle class and lower income Americans. So my plan will cut taxes for all Americans, which will reinforce our consumers' purchasing power and increase consumption, an important element of the strength of a free market economy like ours. By cutting taxes and regulations on businesses, by reducing our corporation tax rate from 40 % to 20 % and by lowering the cost of doing business in America, we're going to ensure massive job creation for all Americans. What Senator Warren and Senator Sanders don't understand is that 70 % of the jobs are created in small businesses and that's why we have reduce small businesses' fiscal burden make sure they will reinforce their competitiveness and their ability to create jobs. And yet both Senator Warren and Senator Sanders are supporting Dodd-Frank that made big banks bigger because the government made them big by imposing thousands of pages of regulations. Unlike small banks, big banks are able to deal with all these regulations because they have an army of lawyers and compliance officers, thus making big banks bigger while small banks are struggling to lend or to exist. Dodd-Frank is also eviscerating small businesses and small banks since it wiped out 40 % of small and mid-size banks that loan money to small businesses, which bankrupted small businesses, killed tens of thousands of jobs and drastically raised the unemployment rate. So Warren is supporting a policy that puts the special interests of Wall Street individuals ahead of the needs of America's middle class and hard working families. That's why Dodd-Frank must be repealed in order to help smaller banks to recover and to get small businesses growing again to create jobs and hire people.

What we need to do to reduce the deficit is to create as many jobs as possible, because the more jobs we create, the more our economy works, the more we can raise the wages and the more we will be able to reduce the deficit. And the reason why the deficit increased in the last couple of years is because President Obama took on the American people's purchasing power, thus making our economy less dynamic and weakening the middle-class. Because if more people work in a growing economy, they're paying taxes, which will help us reducing the deficit. We also have to reduce spending and taxes if we want to make the middle-class stronger because a stronger middle-class is one of the main tools for a stronger economy. We have the duty to put the deficit under control. Otherwise, those burdens will be passed on to our children (including my four children), to our great children and to the next generations. They're going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives. That won't happen if I'm President of the United States.

SANDERS:We plan to introduce the Buffett Rule on a national and legal scale. The Rule is this: No billionaire or millionaire should be paying less in taxes than their secretary. I plan to introduce this as a law.

I plan to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans to 50%. This is lower than the rate under a Republican, President Dwight Eisenhower, and will let us fund our eduaction, infrastructure and healthcare plans. I plan to raise taxes beyond that for wealthy who hide their money in offshore tax havens.

WARREN:I will push for closing corporate tax loopholes and personal income tax loopholes. I will also push for heavy fines for corporations who relocate overseas, as well as heavy tax increases on the top five percent of Americans.

PAUL:Honestly, there is no such thing as "he should pay more taxes so we can give it to the poor", this is theft just like taxation in general, by doing this we are stealing money from who made it legally to give to someone else, this isn't the job of the government! And we all know that the government is good doing this type of thing, the government fails to do basic things, it isn't good to rely on it to redistribute wealth. The government is not Robin Hood! I will not seek to steal money from those who made it legally to give to other people.

The reality is that the richest people already pay their fair share by creating jobs trough their companies and business, and to make them continue to pay this fair share we need to decrease taxes, my plan is to abolish the IRS, abolish the income tax and leave the other taxes as low as we can leave them.

[NHI]

Follow up to Senator Warren and Sander: you are both proposing major social investments and programs. How will your plans be covered and paid for and is higher taxes the only answer?

SANDERS:
No, it is not the only answer. We can cut our military spending and subsidies to big oil and big pharma, two industries that are scamming us out of illions of dollars every year. We need to break up the big banks to ensure that they don't control the national economy. We need to do all this, and more.

WARREN: . I do propose to pay for my social investments and programs by taxing the rich heavily, but there's no reason that the poor and middle class should see a tax increase.


What qualities will you look for in a Supreme Court Justice?
RUBIO: Well first of all, Beth, I wholeheartedly do respect our peoples' rights as well as our people's constitutional rights. Barack Obama is unable to defend the American people who wants to defend their values, which is why they contributed to our majority in the Congress in order to give us the mandate to secure America's freedom and values. If Merrick Garland is confirmed at the Supreme Court, we'll see the death of several unborn babies who, in this case, will not earn the right and the chance to live. We'll see a violation of the Second Amendment and of religious freedom. And Guantanamo terrorists will be awarded with constitutional rights. We can't let that happen.

Guantanamo terrorists are not U.S. citizens and they committed terrorist attacks the United States and our allies, killing tens of thousands of people around the world. When it comes to abortion, we don't settle a disaster through another disaster that kills an unborn baby. We can promote adoptions instead, which will give these children the right to live and to be loved and allow parents who don't want to have child not to have it without killing him. When it comes to gun rights, stricter gun control won't change anything since criminals and terrorists are taking guns in the black market and can still kill people with any other type of weapons like axes, knives or trucks like we saw last summer in Nice, France. So I will allow my Attorney General to delay the transfer of firearms to suspected criminals and terrorists, which will prevent massacres and terrorist attacks on our national territory without violating the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense, a policy that Senator Warren as well as the Democrats in the Senate are opposing. And even last summer, after the Orlando nightclub shooting in my home state of Florida, which was the deadliest terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11, Senator Warren and her colleagues in the Senate voted against allowing the Attorney General to block the transfer of firearms to suspected criminals and suspected terrorists like Omar Mateen who was under FBI investigation, who had links to terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and who joined Hezbollah 3 years before this attack. The responsible of this attack was radical Islamic terrorism but unfortunately Senator Warren will not mention this threat by its name.

So for me, the criteria for my nominee to replace Antonin Scalia is absolutely clear. It will be a constitutional conservative who will wholeheartedly defend all the values that make America great : free enterprise, the right to self-defense through the protection of the Second Amendment, promotion of life, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press and national security.

WARREN:Some have called on me to renominate Merrick Garland should I win, but I'd prefer to make my own choice. My shortlist includes Jacqueline Nugyen, Denny Chin, John Owens, Donald Verrelli, Amy Klobuchar, Eric Schneiderman and Andrew Cuomo.

SANDERS:A Justice that would overturn Citizens United and would protect Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges, as well as one who would not be afraid to dirty themselves in cases that involve angry major bankers and industry heads. I am also searching for ones who take a dim view of Taft-Harley and would not block any attempt to overturn it. I would hope to appoint a similar Justice to Ruth Bader-Ginsburg

PAUL: I'll be seeking to appoint someone who is a constitutionalist, I want someone who will be there judging and defending the constitution, someone who will defend the freedom it gives to us, this means that I want someone who will defend our right to keep and bear arms, someone who will defend our free speech, our privacy, and who overall, will seek to judge the constitution and defend it just like our founding fathers did, with the idea that without it, our freedom and liberty will be under risk.

[NHI]

Good evening. My question to all of you is, regardless of the current rhetoric, would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?

SANDERS:Of course. Senator Warren has been leading the fight against corrupt bankers and industry heads for years. Senator Rubio has been one of the leaders on immigration reform, and Dr. Paul has led our fight against wasteful military spending and pointless foreign intervention.

WARREN: I certainly respect Senator Sanders's respect for his Causes. I certainly respect Senator Rubio's dedication on his foreign policy beliefs, even though he is completely wrong, and I certainly respect Congressman Paul's ideals, even if they are totally misguided.

RUBIO:Well of course I will because that's a fair and important question because despite our differences, we are all Americans and that's why our country is called the United States of America.

Despite our political differences, despite the fact that I disagree with his judgement in many cases, I have admiration for Senator Sanders' reputation as a fighter. He doesn't quit. He doesn't give up. I respect that. The moreover that he led civil rights protests, including a demonstration against segregation in Chicago's public schools.

Even though we disagree on a lot of issues, I respect Congressman Paul for his cause for free market and I'm proud of his military service to our country in the U.S. Air Force and in the U.S. Air National Guard.

Despite our disagreements on how to make this economy fair and working for all Americans, I have respect for Senator Warren's commitment to defend America's land as the land of opportunity, which is an engagement that I'm sharing. And I respect her commitment to improve women's living conditions which is also something I committed to do.

We are a nation composed of several different elements. But we also need to understand that we have to stand for all the values that holds us together as a united nation : freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of religion and opportunity because we are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all

PAUL:There are many things I respect on my opponents, there is something that I really admire about Rubio that is he's fight that started when he was a child and lived paycheck to paycheck and continued trough he's life, and the way he passed trough all of this and is here in this debate today, to me has one name, that is determination, and I respect this a lot on him. Sanders is someone who fights for what he believes and this to me is a great quality in my opinion, and finally Warren I think she is an women who is very intelligent and who also, just like Rubio, is a determined person

Instant Reaction: Who Won the Town Hall Presidential Debate?

Warren: 29%

Rubio: 24%

Paul: 20%

Sanders: 17%

Undecided: 10%

[NHI]

TODD: Tonight we saw the candidates in a very different format and it was revealing.

MADDOW: Town Hall debates are always interesting because they can make or break a candidate. Bill Clinton, for example excelled in this style, especially during his race against President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992. Tonight, I don't think we saw anyone capture that magnitude or level of charisma, but I did find it revealing.

TODD: Panel, quickly who won tonight's debate?

SCHMIDT: Rubio, narrowly.

REID: Warren won and Rubio lost.

WALLACE: Slight edge to Bernie Sanders, I think because of how he handle the FBI question right at the start.

ROBINSON: Warren.

SCARBOROUGH: In terms of appearance Rubio, in terms of substance Paul, and in terms of style Sanders.

TODD: Any changes in the race after tonight?

SCHMIDT: Rubio will hold onto his lead. He is getting a bounce among Hispanic voters, but I think we'll see the race remain where it's been up to now.

ROBINSON: I just have to say I thought tonight Rubio came up short. His answers were long and overstuffed. He seemed out of place or mixed up tonight.

SCHMIDT: It's the format.

MADDOW: Reaction from the Rubio campaign in the spin room is they're calling tonight a 'solid win for Senator Rubio'. The statement reads, "Senator Rubio demonstrated tonight why millions of voters are rallying to his campaign and will elect him the 45th President of the United States."

SCARBOROUGH: That is political spin, I'm sorry, but I have to say as a Republican, and I like Marco Rubio and I think he'd make a great President, but I was more impressed with what Congressman Paul had to say tonight than my own Republican nominee.

TODD: Are we to read that as an endorsement Joe?

SCARBOROUGH: Yes. Read into it, call it whatever you like. Ron Paul is at his core where the Republican party used to be.

MADDOW: Okay, moving on from that. As we look at the map and the race to 270 we turn now to Steve Kornacki.

[NHI]

KORACKI: Yes, Rachel and looking at the electoral map. Here is where things stood the last time we checked:

Electoral Map: With Tossups

Rubio: 277

Warren: 212

Sanders: 3

KORNACKI: We have Senator Rubio with 277 electoral votes, and Senator Warren at 212, now this map is based on state polling where the lead is at least 2 points or higher. In states we have colored in gray it is considered a tossup with the candidates either tied or leading by 1 point or less.

MADDOW: Any change in our map estimates?

KORNACKI: Yes, given Marco Rubio's efforts with Hispanic voters, we are moving New Mexico from the likely Warren camp, to the lean Warren camp. The latest poll has the Massachusetts Senator up, but her lead is narrow.

New Mexico: Latest Poll:

Warren: 47%

Rubio: 43%

Paul: 4%

Sanders: 2%

KORNACKI: We do have a new poll out of Pennsylvania, which should give the Rubio campaign a pause, especially if it is reflective of the entire Rust Belt. Now, Pennsylvania, a state that has been fool's gold for Republicans since 1988, has been trending towards Rubio throughout much of the campaign, but tonight we are seeing signs that Elizabeth Warren is making up ground in the state; in part coupled by her and her running mate's approach to target states in the midwest, states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. The Warren Campaign believes if they can hold the Rust Belt and prevent at least a majority of those four states from flipping then they can hold off Rubio.

Pennsylvania: Latest Poll

Rubio: 45%

Warren: 44%

Sanders: 3%

Paul: 1%

NEXT ROUND: October 10 - 19

Round will end next Sunday 10/22/17 at 10:00 PM EST

Debate questions will be out by tomorrow.

[NHI]

KORACKI: Yes, Rachel and looking at the electoral map. Here is where things stood the last time we checked:

Electoral Map: With Tossups

Rubio: 277

Warren: 212

Sanders: 3

KORNACKI: We have Senator Rubio with 277 electoral votes, and Senator Warren at 212, now this map is based on state polling where the lead is at least 2 points or higher. In states we have colored in gray it is considered a tossup with the candidates either tied or leading by 1 point or less.

MADDOW: Any change in our map estimates?

KORNACKI: Yes, given Marco Rubio's efforts with Hispanic voters, we are moving New Mexico from the likely Warren camp, to the lean Warren camp. The latest poll has the Massachusetts Senator up, but her lead is narrow.

New Mexico: Latest Poll:

Warren: 47%

Rubio: 43%

Paul: 4%

Sanders: 2%

KORNACKI: We do have a new poll out of Pennsylvania, which should give the Rubio campaign a pause, especially if it is reflective of the entire Rust Belt. Now, Pennsylvania, a state that has been fool's gold for Republicans since 1988, has been trending towards Rubio throughout much of the campaign, but tonight we are seeing signs that Elizabeth Warren is making up ground in the state; in part coupled by her and her running mate's approach to target states in the midwest, states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin. The Warren Campaign believes if they can hold the Rust Belt and prevent at least a majority of those four states from flipping then they can hold off Rubio.

Pennsylvania: Latest Poll

Rubio: 45%

Warren: 44%

Sanders: 3%

Paul: 1%

NEXT ROUND: October 10 - 20

Round will end next Sunday 10/22/17 at 10:00 PM EST

Debate questions will be out by tomorrow.

Actually, the turn should run until October 19 because that was the day the third and final debate was held in Las Vegas. Right?

'

Correct, amended.

- NHI

[NHI]

New Battleground Polls:



Ohio: Warren +1
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Pennsylvania: Rubio +1
Rubio: 44%
Warren: 43%
Sanders: 6%
Paul: 3%

Wisconsin: Rubio +2
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 43%
Sanders: 8%
Paul: 1%

Michigan: Tied
Warren: 44%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 2%

Minnesota: Warren +1
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 9%
Paul: 1%

New Hampshire: Warren +1
Warren: 31%
Rubio: 30%
Paul: 19%
Sanders: 17%

Maine: Tied
Warren: 34%
Rubio: 34%
Sanders: 14%
Paul: 13%

Colorado: Warren +1
Warren: 40%
Rubio: 39%
Paul: 8%
Sanders: 3%

Hawaii: Sanders +1
Sanders: 28%
Rubio: 27%
Warren: 26%
Paul: 15%

Nebraska: CD 2: Rubio +3
Rubio: 44%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 10%
Paul: 1%

[NHI]

State of the Race:

KORNACKI: We're gaming out various scenarios for the two major candidates, in the race to 270 electoral votes. Beginning with Senator Rubio, he has the easiest pathway to the electoral college. Based on all the polling samples at this time, and excluding the tied states we would project Rubio the winner with 278 electoral votes.

Now, taking a polling average of the tied states, another path for Rubio would be this map:

Rubio: 296

Warren: 235

Sanders: 7

So, now if you're Senator Warren and you're looking at how do you win the electoral college, it starts with three basics: One; hold the states she is already leading in. Two; win the tossup states. Three; either pickup a Romney 2012 states (i.e. Indiana, North Carolina, Arizona, Missouri) or hold the states Obama won in 2012; meaning flip the states Rubio has been leading in like Pennsylvania. If she did that; held the states she's leading in, wins the tossups; and keeps Pennsylvania she would get 273 a slim margin, but a win is still a win.

There is of course, the doomsday scenario, where Warren does two of the three steps, but instead of flipping a Romney state, instead only holds Wisconsin and loses Pennsylvania. In that case you are looking at this map:

Rubio: 268

Warren: 263

Sanders: 7

So, as you can see the math and the map is tougher for Elizabeth Warren given Senator Rubio's advantages in Obama states, and the added presence of Bernie Sanders. Now there is a wild card option, and it is this idea that Ron Paul, someone who has done well in the debates, exceeds expectations and while does not win a state, does damage to Rubio in places where he can't afford to lose, like Nevada, Alaska, Arizona and Montana. Under such a scenario, where Paul performs better than the polling is suggesting and Warren is able to flip many traditionally Republican states, then this map could be plausible:

Warren: 270

Rubio: 261

Sanders: 7

Warren: 271

Rubio: 260

Sanders: 7

Silver: Rubio has the edge, but Warren can catch up. No majority is possible.

Chances of the Winning the Presidency:
Marco Rubio: 45.1%
Elizabeth Warren: 29.7%
No Majority Reached: 25.2%

Current Electoral Map: at this time

Rubio: 294
Warren: 241
Sanders: 3
Paul: 0

Popular Vote Estimations at this time:
Rubio: 44.4%
Warren: 42.7%
Sanders: 7.2%
Paul: 4.9%

[NHI]

I'm proud to announce Goldeneye as my replacement

Ok! Sounds good

An update: I will extend the round until tomorrow night at 10;00 pm est. I’ve been battling a cold all weekend and am not feeling up to snuff tonight

[NHI]

center]FINAL PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE[/center]
Candidates: Let's get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. You all talked briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely or possibly two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the constitution should be interpreted? Do the founders' words mean what they say or is it a living document to be applied flexibly, according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Senator Warren you go first. You have two minutes:

 [Warren:]I want to see the court take the court the way the way the constitution was written, as a living a document. Those who believe in strict textualism, like the late Justice Scalia, are ignoring the fact that the original Bill of Rights wasn't in our constitution. Would they want those amendments removed?

RUBIO: RUBIO: Thank you Chris for moderating that debate and I want to thank Senator Warren, Senator Sanders and Congressman Paul for being here tonight and I want to thank the University of Nevada for hosting this debate. Let me start by saying that two days ago, my family and I celebrated the 18th anniversary of the day I became the luckiest man on Earth when Jeanette accepted to marry me. I love you Jeanette. And it's really amazing to be back here in Las Vegas. I spent six years as a child growing not far from where we stand tonight. I use to sit on the porch of our home and listen to my grandfather tell stories as he smoked one of three daily cigars.

Now let's come to your question, Chris. Yes, I do believe that our Founding Fathers really mean what they say because we cherish all the values defended by the Constitution and the next Supreme Court Justice will play a great role in the issue about what kind of country we're going to be for the future. And as you know, the first 10 amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, place restrictions on the powers of government, thus giving more freedom to the people. That's why my nominee for Supreme Court Justice (I have Mike Lee in mind, notably) will be a constitutional conservative who will protect unborn children from abortion and give them the right to live, repeal and replace Obamacare, reduce the size of government for the sake of freedom and prosperity and defend all the values defended by the Constitution such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press and the Second Amendment that protects the right of self-defense. Meanwhile, my opponent Elizabeth Warren will nominate someone who will do the contrast of the values defended by the Constitution. Warren's nominee will violate the Second Amendment, increase the size of government and make Obamacare permanent, which will ensure that tens of millions of Americans will lose their access to healthcare and their health insurance. And even after the shooting at the Orlando Pulse Nightclub, Senator Warren voted against allowing the Attorney General to block the transfer of firearms to suspected terrorists, which is the right thing to do in order to prevent such disasters without violating the Second Amendment. For that reason, my nominee for SCOTUS will defend every single word of what our founders said in the Constitution for the sake of our country's freedom, prosperity and security.

PAUL: First of all, I want to thank Rubio, Warren and Sanders for coming to this debate, I'd like to see a Supreme Court that fights for the following things, the three rights every individual has, life, liberty and estate, and our constitution, so basically, I want to see a supreme court that will protect the rights of all Americans, that will protect the freedom and the life of all of us, what I want to see is a supreme court that fights for the end of the killings of citizens who haven't been born, because they also have the right to life, I want to see a supreme court that will fight for the end of the violation of the 4th amendment that happens everyday, I want to see is a supreme court that will defend the american values of liberty and freedom, that will defend the right to have property and that will interpret the constitution like our founding father wanted us to interpret it.

I do think the constitution means what is written, I do think that our founder meant exactly what is written there, this might seem like a normal opinion to someone who is a libertarian or a republican, but I disagree, many Republicans simply don't think this, at least not entirely, they, mostly establishment republicans and people like Marco defend things like the PATRIOT Act and the NSA Surveillance which directly breaks the 4th amendment, this isn't "thinking the founding fathers meant what they wrote in the constitution", this is close to "thinking that the founding fathers meant what they wrote in SOME parts of the constitution".

You talked about "applying the constitution in a flexible way", and while it seems like an good idea for some, there are some problems, the first is that we can't simply make the constitution so flexible, the constitution can't be changed every time so it can be flexible, the second is that depending on how it would be changed to be flexible, it would be a bad change, imagine if the congress and the president think that the flexibility is to get rid of freedom of speech, it is an far fetched idea, but it shouldn't even be possible, the third thing is that the constitution already provides the explanations of how things work and there isn't really any big changes we could make, except in things like the 16th amendment, that was added many years after the ratification of the constitution and that created the income tax, the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes.

So that's what I think, the constitution means what it means and it should be flexible to the modern days like some say, because it is already good how it is.

SANDERS: S: The founders' words mean exactly what they say. I've been outspoken in calling for an overturn of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the Supreme Court overturned McCain-Feingold restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions as a violation of the First Amendment. This was one of the Supreme Court's worst decisions ever and it deflect attention from the real issues facing voters. That's why I propose a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. When it comes to espionage, I think Edward Snowden played a very important role in educating the American people to the degree in which our civil liberties and our constitutional rights are being undermined because of NSA spying.

[NHI]

[

WALLACE: Following up, do each of you believe Roe v. Wade is settled law?

RUBIO: O: The reason why I'm opposing Roe v. Wade is because we can't solve a problem by creating another problem. When you look at our debt, we owe 20 trillion dollars and we borrow more than 1 million dollars per minute. That's why we have to reduce government spending. But now, the government is spending millions and millions of dollars every year to fund Planned Parenthood, which not only costs too much money but also allows further abortions through money that partly comes from American taxpayers. It's outrageous that the government takes taxpayers' money in order to allow the death of unborn babies. So we need to defund Planned Parenthood in order to save the life of the unborn and also to save money and allow taxpayers to keep their money for their American Dream and their pursuit of happiness, which will help us to cut government spending and to balance the budget.

Take a look at China's two-child policy that limits the number of children per family at two, it is a violation to the human right of determining the size of one's own family. And there is a clear alternative to abortion and that is adoption. Adoption will allow couples who don't want a baby not to have one without killing him while this baby will earn the chance to live, to be raised, to be loved and to appreciate the gift of life. That's why I will put pro-life justices on the court in order to ensure that it will go back to the states and that every child will earn the right to live.

WARREN: . Roe V. Wade won't be settled law until a constitutional amendment permanently enshrining the right to an abortion is passed. As President, I will push for that, because the Republicans will continue to push for the overturning of Roe V. Wade by any means necessary, and the criminalization of abortion, even when the mother's life is on the line.

SANDERS: Of course it is. And I will work for Supreme Court justices who understand that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and recognize the rights of women to have access to family planning services.

PAUL: Well, I always opposed abortion,I think that the idea that we should allow fetuses, which are humans, which have a life, to be killed, every human has the right to life and this shouldn't exclude fetuses, by allowing abortion we are violating the right of life from many babies. The main problem with this issue is that people don't agree when does life begin, if it begins at conception or when the baby is born, I have delivered more than 4,000 babies and to me, it begins at conception, and nobody should have the right to violate this life from the person that will be born.

But I also don't think that the federal government should ban it, the 9th and 10th amendment don't give the federal government this authority, instead, what should happen is that Roe v Wade should be overturned and each state should decide if it does or not allow abortion, and if this happened, I'd definitely support governors trying to end the killing of the unborn babies.

Another thing that has to do with abortion is the federal funding of planned parenthood, an organization that performs abortions, this funding needs to stop for many reasons, the first one is because the government should not give federal funds to companies and organizations, we should stay out of the free market, the second this is that we should not endorse, by giving funds, any organization that breaks any of the three natural rights of the human being, life, liberty and estate/property, and planned parenthood breaks the first one by violating the life of unborn babies, and the third thing is that we are forcing people, even if they are against abortion, to fund an organization that performs abortion, because we are giving them taxpayers money, and in a Warren administration for example, this will continue, because she already spoken in favor of this public funding that violates the rights of the unborn babies who are being aborted.

So I think that yes, Roe v Wade should be overturned, that we should stop funding planned parenthood and that we should leave this issue to be decided by the states.

[NHI]

Moving next to the topic of immigration, please explain your positions and why you are right on the issue, and why the other candidates are wrong.

SANDERS: First of all, I give credit to Senator Rubio for his fight for immigration reform in 2013 to make our immigration system fairer.

Here's what we have to understand : most criminals in the United States were born and raised here, and didn't immigrate. And that's something Congressman Paul doesn't understand. And even though he said that it's rather offensive to build a fence on the borders, he still supported the Security Fence Act in 2006, which allowed the building of a fence on the southern border. He has proven to have no credibility on immigration since he changed his position on that issue.

However, I would also do border protection. The point is, we don't need a tougher system for immigrants-we have one of the toughest in the world already-we need to make it better. As President, I will reach out to advisers and then formulate the best plan possible.

I will grant amnesty for all. However, I would also do border protection. The point is, we don't need a tougher system for immigrants-we have one of the toughest in the world already-we need to make it better. As President, I will reach out to advisers and then formulate the best plan possible.

PAUL: Our current immigration is just broken, we can't stick with it how it is now, the status quo, we need some type of change, a reform, if we don't reform it, we will continue having this same immigration problem for many, many time, I don't think we should simply deport everyone, this would cost millions of dollars, would be ineffective because there are way too many people and would be bad for the economy because many business require these people to work, but we shouldn't simply give amnesty to everyone either, because there are criminals between the illegal immigrants, my immigration plan is based in five steps:

Step number one, we will get rid of the welfare state, a welfare state only makes us spend money on "free things" that aren't actually free that everyone can use, this idea makes many people come to here illegally expecting to have a better life, without working being only helped by the state, so we need to end this now so people will stop coming here expecting to have everything free from the government and so we stop spending so much money. The second step is to establish a generous worker visa program, this would work like a green card lite for honest illegal immigrants who are working, they would receive the worker visa and stay working while they go trough the same legal process to become a legal immigrant like anyone else, this would ensure our economy will not suffer any major impact.

RUBIO: As the son of Cuban immigrants, I understand the immigration issue as well as the struggles of immigrants. Unlike what my opponents are saying, nothing has changed in my immigration policy. Our immigration system is broken and that's why I believe it must be reformed. The Gang of Eight bill, that I co-sponsored 3 years ago, included billions of dollars for border enforcement and more border agents so it was aimed at reinforcing our borders, which would have brought illegal immigration under control and allow us to reform our immigration system and allow a path to U.S. citizenship for immigrants across this country. By contrast, Congressman Paul is the one who shifted his position on immigration because he said that illegal immigration can't be solved by a wall and even said that he finds the idea of building a fence « rather offensive ». And yet, he voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act of 2006, a legislation that encouraged building a wall on the border. In addition, Senator Sanders along with Sherrod Brown, Senator Warren's running mate, voted against the Immigration Act of 2007 that would have reinforced and secured our borders by increasing the number of border agents, would have reformed our immigration system and would have gave immigrants a path to citizenship. And here's what Senator Warren got wrong on immigration : she doesn't understand that we are facing a huge flow of Syrian refugees. We won’t be able to take more refugees. It’s not that we don’t want to, it's that we can't. We could be open to the relocation of some of these individuals at some point in time to the U.S. But we will always be concerned that someone with a terrorist background could also sneak in among the refugees in order to cross the borders and commit terrorist attacks on our national territory.

If I'm President, we're going to secure our borders in order to make sure we'll stop any criminal or terrorist to cross the borders by hiring 20 000 new border agents. We'll have mandatory E-verify, a mandatory entry/exit tracking system, thus bringing illegal immigration under control. I will make it a priority for the first year of my first term because the sooner we bring illegal immigration under control, the sooner we can reform our immigration system to ensure a path to citizenship for immigrants, which will help them to live better lives and to finally accomplish the American Dream here on the land of opportunity.


WARREN:3. I would create a pathway to citizenship for any immigrant who has not committed a felony, or serious misdemeanor, or is not wanted by the authorities in their home country, unless they seek asylum here. I would increase the number and pay of Border Guards. One thing I would not do is build a wall, like some on the right are proposing. It's counterproductive and a waste of money, as undocumented immigrants will find a way into the country anyways. Each of my colleagues, with the exception of Congressman Paul has made parts of decent proposals. If you combine mine to theirs, I think you get a good overall proposal

[NHI]

WALLACE: Security is a top concern among voters and the issue of hacking, will likely face the next President. How are we to respond to the issue and how do we prevent such an attack from happening again?

RUBIO: Well, let me start by saying that Wikileaks affirmed that the Russian government has engaged in espionage against Americans. They have hacked American websites, American accounts of private people, of institutions. Then they have given that information to WikiLeaks for the purpose of putting it on the Internet. This has come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, from Putin, in an effort, as 17 of our intelligence agencies have confirmed, to influence our election. I find it disturbing that Congressman Paul is the only presidential candidate in this race who did not condemn these cyber-attacks. No wonder that Daily Leak noted that documents stolen and released by Edward Snowden demonstrated that Congressman Paul gave secret government information to Vladimir Putin during his time in Congress and these were documents about Russia's imperialist policies in Eastern Europe. No wonder that he supports Russia's illegal occupation of Crimea as well as Putin's influence in Syria in addition of wanting to shut down NATO, which will undermine international freedom, stability and security and make our enemies stronger.

We'll also have to fight cyber-terrorism since ISIS is leading cyber-attacks against us. ISIS hackers tried to infiltrate computers that regulate the nation’s electricity grid, planned to crash passenger jets by hacking into on-board electronics and to trigger a nuclear attack against our country by sending rogue commands to nuclear power plants. That's why we have to reinforce our cyber-security. It requires going after ISIS and other radical Islamic terrorists online. We need to do much more with our tech companies to prevent ISIS and their operatives from being able to use the Internet to radicalize, even direct people in our country and Europe and elsewhere. It requires reporting if companies happen to notice online terrorist activity, encourage information sharing between the federal government and the private sector to adequately respond to cyber threats, while maintaining privacy protections, use American power to respond harshly to international cyber attacks on American citizens, businesses, and governments. But sadly, that is something Senator Warren opposes since she voted against the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015. So she demonstrated irresponsibility by voting against a bill aimed at making sure we'll prevent such cyber-attacks will never happen again. The American people has suffered terrorist attacks for too long and that's why I'm reiterating my commitment to fight and defeat radical Islamic terrorism on every single area, whether it's on land, from the air and online.


SANDERS: We need to upgrade our cybersecurity systems to reflect the 21st century; they are woefully out of date.

However, we should welcome transparency in our government. Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning and other people like them have done this country a great service by revealing just what our military and government have been doing. Furthermore, if we're so worried about our secrets being stolen, then we need to ask oursevles: What secrets is our government hiding?

We already know what Senator Warren and the Democratic National Committee were trying to hide, and the reveal of this information was a public service. I support Snowden coming home and Manning being freed from prison with no strings attached. They did a public service, and we should be celebrating whistleblowers, rather than persecuting them.

WARREN: The DNC hack was a disaster on many levels. It cost me a friendship with a colleague of mine, and may well have cost me the election. The next President will have much to do to prevent such hacks from occurring in the future. He or She should order counter hacks against known hackers like Iran, Russia and North Korea, impose harsh sanctions on those who hack us like Russia, and if necessary be willing to work with our regional allies to isolate hackers across Asia, like China and North Korea, and Europe, like Russia.

PAUL: I think there is a very simple way of preventing such thing from happening, there are many very talented people, specially young people that can help us to defend our country from cyber attacks, what I'm saying is that we should reach these people and offer them deals to employ them and order them to defend our country.

While I think that defending our documents is important, I don't think this justifies the idea that we should jail Snowden and similar people, what people like Snowden and Manning did is justifiable, what they did was to give more transparency to us, Snowden for example shown that the government was spying on you and breaking the 4th amendment, Manning shown that the US was violating international treaties and bombing countries secretly like Yemen, these type of people, that show government corruption should be protected by the government, they should not be hanged, jailed, exiled, called traitors or something similar, they're patriots for exposing corruption and the government breaking our rights, they should be pardoned instead

[NHI]

WALLACE: Turning now to the economy and the subject of creating jobs: please explain to me why you believe your plan will create more jobs and growth for this country and your opponent's plan will not

PAUL:
PAUL: I think my plan will create more jobs because it will bring actual free market and not regulated trade and state sponsored monopolies, my plan for the economy begins with a tax cut, my plan is to abolish the income tax, so people will have more of their own money, still talking about taxes, I'll also reduce the corporate tax to 15%, this will make companies stay in the country and will make them generate more revenue, so they will be able to expand more and create more jobs, my plan also involves leaving the TPP and other similar treaties like NAFTA and the WTO, because they help the government to become bigger, they bring regulated trade, which is different from free trade and regulated trade is bad, it hurts the economy, and they help corporations to create with help of the government, government sponsored monopolies, after leaving these treaties we will negotiate real free trade deals with other countries, I would also end many regulations, regulations only hurt small business that can't afford the costs. With this plan alone, our economy would already grow much faster, it would create jobs, give people more money, help small business to grow and bring back jobs to areas like the Rust Belt, and there are still much more things that I'm not talking about because they would help us to reduce our debt and keep inflation low and not with jobs, like ending the Federal Reserve, reintroducing the gold standard and cutting spending in many areas.

My plan is better than my opponents plans for many reasons, it is better than Warren's and Sanders' plan because I will cut regulations and taxes that are hurting small business from all over the country, their tax plans as well as the fact that they want more government intervention in the way of regulations will hurt our small business, make jobs leave and hurt our economy. And my plan is better than Rubio's plan because he want to keep us on the globalist big government deals like the TPP, NAFTA and the WTO, which promote regulated trade and government sponsored monopolies which are bad for the economy.

RUBIO: We are living the slowest economy in our country's history and that is due to this administration's trickle-down government policies that increased taxes and regulations, made us more dependent on foreign energy and made America a harder place to do business. Senator Warren's plan will bring more of the same by doubling taxes and that will be a disaster. There is one thing Senator Warren doesn't understand about the economy : it's businesses and corporations that create jobs, not the government. And 70 % of jobs come from small businesses and yet Senator Warren wants to tax and regulate small businesses. I am a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. I know what it takes to make American businesses, including small businesses, growing again to create jobs. President Obama's War on Coal, that Senator Warren is supporting and wants to pursue, has proven to be a failure and killed over 25 000 jobs, including in Ohio, the home state of your running mate Sherrod Brown. Meanwhile, Congressman Paul is adopting populist policies that have proven to be a failure as we saw during the Great Depression with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 that increased tariffs and reduced American exports and imports, thus increasing unemployment rate from 8 % in 1930 to 25 % in 1932. America needs jobs, not populism and populism means more government as well as restriction of free enterprise and free market.

The best way to ensure and increase economic growth is to make America the best place in the world to do business. So we need to reduce taxes for all the American people, including the middle class and lower income Americans in order to reinforce their purchasing power. We also need to reform our education system through school choice, end the War on Coal, encourage oil drilling in order to create jobs through taking advantage of all of our sources of energy and using a part of revenues from oil drilling to develop renewable energies. We have to pursue our quest for open markets by promoting free trade, lowering tariffs, making American products more accessible for international consumers, reducing taxes and regulations on America's manufacturing industry and cutting our corporate tax rate from 40 % to 20 %, which will help us to bring jobs back home, to keep creating jobs through fairer free trade deals for America and to make America the best business-friendly environment in the world, which also requires cutting taxes on businesses and corporations, reducing the cost of doing business in America, which will reinforce our businesses' capacity to innovate, to produce and to create jobs. And finally, we have to develop our infrastructure through budget surpluses once the budget balanced, which will facilitate economic and commercial activities all across America and encourage future business people to open their business here in the United States, thus ensuring further job creation here in America, the land of opportunity. My plan will create 14 million new jobs and finally get our country to full-employment.

SANDERS: Well, as President Lyndon B. Johnson said, « Republicans simply don't know how to manage the economy. » And Senator Warren even embraced Republicans' economic policies since she was a Republican before becoming a Democrat unlike me who has fought for progressive causes since the 1960s. In addition, if Senator Warren is so anti-Wall Street, I don't understand why she still supports the Ex-Im Bank while it loans out taxpayer money to big politically-connected corporations and banks. Like I said, the Ex-Im Bank is corporate welfare at its worst. And even Barack Obama has said that the Ex-Im Bank has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare when he ran for President in 2008. I don't think that's progressive. That's why that's why progressives can't trust Senator Warren in making sure that rich people will pay their fair share.

So my plan is to create jobs is to withdraw from NAFTA and TPP in order to put American jobs first, invest in green energies in order not only to create jobs but also to bring a clean and ecological environment, invest in infrastructures in order to facilitate our country's economic activities, reduce taxes for small businesses while increasing taxes on big corporations and raising the minimum wage to 15 $/hour.

WARREN:]Reaganonmics simply do not work. Nine out of Ten economists have said so consistently. What does work is raising taxes on people who make money, thus filling the coffers of the government

[NHI]

WALLACE: Turning to foreign policy, specifically the middle east: If we are able to push ISIS out of Mosul and out of Iraq, would you be willing to put U.S. troops in there to prevent their return or something else?

WARREN: No, I would not. We've already put our troops in Iraq once, and that's how we got ISIS, who's to say they won't have a resurgence if we do it again?


RUBIO: As we've seen, our troops' early withdrawal in 2011, which my opponents supported, while our job to train Iraqi troops and to make sure they take full responsibility of Iraq's security was not yet completed created a vacuum and allowed ISIS to rise, to conquer a large territory and to commit terrorist attacks around the world, including in Garland, San Bernardino, Orlando, Paris, Nice and Brussels. If we don't take real action against ISIS, Iraq will be once again a safe haven for terrorism like in the past when Saddam Hussein gave sanctuary to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad terrorist who was involved in the millennium plot, a terrorist attempt to commit bombing attacks against tourist sites in Jordan as well as against the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and the USS The Sullivans in the context of millennium celebrations. There is a saying that "those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". Senator Warren's weak foreign policy will move us backwards. No wonder that she wants Joe Biden as her Secretary of State, which will ensure the continuation of Obama's foreign policy that gave us ISIS. America needs change in terms of foreign policy.

So we need to have the courage to take real action against ISIS. It requires increasing our defense budget in order to reinforce and modernize our military. We have to strengthen and extend our alliances in the region, to send all the necessary military arsenal and troops in Iraq and Syria in order to fight ISIS by striking them on their territory and freeing these territories from their occupation. We also need to deprive ISIS of its oil refineries by securing them and give them back to the people of Iraq and Syria, which will deprive ISIS of the money they need to organize and prepare terrorist attacks and we must arm the right groups in the Middle East (including the Peshmerga) through background checks. That way, terrorists who are pretending to be mainstream Syrian rebels will not get weapons. If you're too dangerous to be armed, you will not get weapons. That's how we're going to find and capture or kill Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and defeat ISIS. Under my leadership, our troops will complete their duty to train Iraqi forces and make sure that the Iraqi army will be fully prepared to ensure its country's security, to fight terrorism and to prevent any ISIS-like force from emerging.

PAUL:  No way! We already seen the result from this type of foreign policy, just look to Iraq, Libya and similar countries, this failed foreign policy promoted by Bush, Obama and now Rubio and Warren has failed, by sending troops to there we will make more people see us as filthy foreign invaders, this will make them hate us, they will claim their lives are worse because of us, which depending on the case, might be true, and then they'll strike, they'll join or create terrorist groups that want to see America and all the Western Civilization burn, nation building has been shown ineffective.

Instead, what I propose os that we should let the people from Iraq, from Kurdistan and from Syria rebuild themselves, let them take care of their own problems after we defeat ISIS, intervening there after ISIS is defeat is signing the declaration of wanting that terrorists appear again. The way to keep peace in the Middle East is to not intervene, and that's exactly what I'll do, because ai don't want to see new terrorists there killing innocent people and oppressing people in the territories that they control.

SANDERS: No. Our military intervention in Iraq caused all the mess in which Iraq is actually. And I'm astonished that Senator Warren wants to select Vice-President Biden as her Secretary of State while we all know that just like Barack Obama, he is just another liberal-hawk. He voted in favor of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, he supported the military intervention in Libya in 2011, which was a failure and created a vacuum fulfilled by jihadists. And he also supports drone strikes that, most of the time, accidently kill innocent people. So if Senator Warren is elected, she will embrace the same Republican-like hawkish policies of President Bush and President Obama.

We need to form a coalition of anti-ISIS nations in the Middle East. Part of this will necessitate working with some unsavory people. Assad in Syria for example. However, we have a common enemy, and offering material and diplomatic support is an excellent way to get some policy concessions from them. The same goes for Iran. We need to both hold an anti-ISIS Middle Eastern coalition together, and gain concessions from the leaders of these countries.

[NHI]

WALLACE: At this point Social Security and Medicare are going to run out -- the trust funds are going to run out of money. Will you, as president, consider a grand bargain, a deal that includes both tax increases and benefit cuts to try to save both programs?

SANDERS: Absolutely. You know why? Because even though the Affordable Care Act was a marked improvement over our old system, it didn't go far enough and President Obama has failed to establish grand bargain for Obamacare, but I will.

WARREN: I would not. We need the tax increases on things like the payroll tax, and other new taxes that could be directed to Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, and Medicaid far more than it would be politically realistic to consider benefit cuts.

Paul; L: Once again, no way! This doesn't mean I don't want to save both of them, I want to, in my opinion, both if them, the way they are today, are unconstitutional and shouldn't be allowed, so as president, I have a solution to save both of them and solve the problem with both being unconstitutional, the solution is to privatize them both.

Some might say them is a horrible thing, but just look to Chile, a country that privatized social security and is the most developed nation in South America, both social security and Medicare, we would not only help our economy because we would have to spend less, but it would also be better for the American people, because the private sector is much more efficient than the government and by privatizing them, competition will be able to appear, and competition is always great to the consumer, because both companies will have better service for lower costs

RUBIONo, I will not raise taxes because it will only make things worse and make it much more difficult for our people to have access to health services, to healthcare and to Social Security.

I would say that to say that Obamacare has some problems would be the equivalent to saying the Titanic has some problems. It has enormous problems. Number 1, it's running up our debt. Number 2, people are losing their coverage. In about 3 weeks, millions of Americans are going to lose their coverage again. If you look at the kind of numbers that it will cost us in 2017, it's a disaster. If we don't repeal and replace Obamacare, it's probably going to collapse on its own weight. Healthcare premium costs are going up 60 %, 70 %. We can't afford to get things worse like Senator Warren wants to do by keeping Obamacare that will keep depriving insurance companies of money by bankrupting them and that will keep taxing our people across this country in order to bailout insurance companies.

By the way, one of the things I'm proudest of is I led an effort to defund a bailout fund that they had built into Obamacare. They had put into Obamacare a fund where they were going to use taxpayers' money to bail out private insurance companies who lost money under Obamacare and I prevented that from happening and I will keep doing it as President.

Repealing and replacing Obamacare is crucial not only to save Medicare and to give the American people a fair chance for access to health services. It's also crucial to save the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. My healthcare plan will liberate states from many Obamacare burdens. It will oblige the Secretary of Health and Human Services to grant all state waiver requests unless they increase federal spending, and to issue a final decision on waiver applications within 6 months of receiving them. Under current law, waivers are at the secretary’s discretion and there is no deadline. The new waiver process will let states reduce premiums and health-care costs by bypassing a broad array of Obamacare provisions, including benefit mandates and requirements that all individual policies be part of a single risk pool. All of this new flexibility will substantially improve Washington’s fidelity to the 10th Amendment. It will give governors and state legislators the ability to reduce health-care costs for those who’ve struggled in the Obamacare era. It will help them to devote limited resources to those most in need. My healthcare plan represents the greatest expansion of state sovereignty in generations, which is why, when I become President, we will have a better free market healthcare system for the sake of our people's health and of the Constitution of the United States.

[NHI]

WALLACE: You all had not agreed to closing statements, but it seems to me in a funny way that might make it more interesting because you haven’t prepared closing statements. So I would for each of you to take -- and we're going to put a clock up -- a minute as the final question, in the final debate, to tell the American people why they should elect you to be the next president.

RUBIO:
RUBIO: When I started my campaign by announcing my candidacy for President, I started it on a program aimed at leading America and all the American people to a New American Century.

We have a chance of having real leadership. Since too long, America has been ripped apart due to increased violence and tensions. Since too long, America is suffering a sluggish economy in which big government has killed opportunities as well as good-paying jobs. Since too long, America and its allies are suffering terrorist attacks but this administration has done nothing but cutting in our military budget and in our security measures and withdrawing from the fight against terrorism.

This election will decide whether my four children and yours will be the most prosperous generation of Americans that ever lived or if they will be the first generation of Americans to inherit a country in decline.

So in 3 weeks, the question that will be asked to the voters is whether they want a third term like the last eight years or they want real great change. I listened to the American people all around the country, and I understand their concerns.

We can't change anything by having another 4 years like the last 8 years while Senator Warren is adopting the same economic program as President Obama and wants Joe Biden as her Secretary of State even though this administration has failed to keep our country safe and to defeat ISIS.

This kind of change includes permanent economic prosperity through free market solutions, energy independence, budget balance, free trade, education reform, small business championing and infrastructure development. Thanks to my experience as member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, we will achieve America's prosperity.

This kind of change requires peace through stronger alliances, a stronger military and a stronger diplomacy in order defeat terrorism and tyranny and restore peace, freedom and integrity around the world. With my experience as a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and of the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence, we will defeat global terrorism and keep America free and safe.

Such kind of change requires stronger unity among the American people. That's why, throughout this campaign, I showed my willingness to put the different parties together and to work with Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find real solutions to accomplish common goals and get things done whether it's on economic issues, social issues or foreign policy issues. That's why our country is called the United States of America. That's why we need to put our differences aside in order to get things done. That's why w need to trust the American people. And I trust the American people in their judgement and their willing to get our country together once and for all and to make sure that we make great accomplishments for a brighter future for America. That's why I'm running for President.

We need strong leadership. I seek to be that leader. I'll work for you. I will put your interests first. That's why I ask for your vote. I want to be President for all Americans, whether they are conservatives, liberals, progressives, libertarians or independents. I want to get America back on track and on the right direction and together, we will ensure that America will keep its status as the hope of the Earth.

Thank you very much.


PAUL: I think you should vote to elect me for president because I have been in Congress, and am today in this stage the biggest fighter for your rights and you liberty, I have always opposed the killing of unborn, I have always opposed big government, I have always fought to end surveillance, I have always fought for the Constitution. I think that our liberty is something untradable and that we shouldn't give it for security, because just like Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who trade freedom for security, get neither", that's why I oppose the espionage our government does, it breaks our rights that are in 4th amendment, my economic plan is based on the principles of the Austrian economics school, which made countries like Switzerland, Liechenstein and Chile good countries to live, I have voted against my party many times because I wanted to stick for my principles of only voting for something if it is authorized by the Constitution, I'm not someone who is driven by it's party ideology, instead, I'm driven by my own ideas, my foreign policy is similar from the one from Washington, a non interventionist foreign policy that wants us to look more to our own problems than the problems from other people, a foreign policy that wants to bring our sons and daughters back home rather than send them to places where they can die... That's why I think you should vote for me, and I hope, you consider me on election day.

SANDERS: I believe our economy has to be fair for all Americans, not just the top 1 %. That's why I will increase taxes on the top 1 %, increase the minimum wage to 15 dollars/hour, focus on green energies, take on Wall Street and reform it, restore Glass-Steagall and withdraw from unfair trade deals.

On foreign policy, I don't believe we have to be the world's police and to spend so much money for endless wars. I will promote diplomacy and work with our Arab allies and with Russia to defeat ISIS.

If you want change and turn the page to the last 16 years, then I'm asking for your vote.

WARREN: As much as it pains me to defeat the first Latino, or first Jewish President...think of the honor America will get in the world by electing their first female President.

[NHI]

Debate Snapshot:

Who won?
Rubio: 32%
Paul: 24%
Warren: 20%
Sanders: 17%

Next round will last until Monday 10/30/17 at 10:00 pm est
Oct 30-30, 2016

[NHI]

State Polling: Oct. 21, 2016

Arizona:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 42%
Paul: 3%
Sanders: 1%

Nevada:
Rubio: 49%
Warren: 44%
Paul: 4%
Sanders: 2%

Oregon:
Warren: 47%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 10%
Paul: 2%

Colorado:
Warren: 43%
Rubio: 40%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 7%

New Mexico:
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 45%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%

Hawaii:
Rubio: 34%
Warren: 31%
Sanders: 27%
Paul: 7%

Ohio:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 45%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 2%

Wisconsin:
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 47%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Michigan:
Warren: 46%
Rubio: 45%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

Pennsylvania:
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 45%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Virginia:
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 46%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

Minnesota:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 8%
Paul: 1%

New Hampshire:
Warren: 34%
Rubio: 33%
Paul: 15%
Sanders: 13%

Maine:
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 37%
Paul: 9%
Sanders: 9%

Missouri:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

North Carolina:
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Alaska:
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 11%
Sanders: 5%

Illinois:
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 43%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

National Polling: Four Way Race (Rubio +3)

Rubio: 44%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 4%

National Polling: Two-Way Race (Rubio +2)/b]

Rubio: 49%
Warren: 47%

538 Election Prediction: Tracking % Oct. 21, 2016

Marco Rubio: 43% Chance of becoming President

Elizabeth Warren: 33% Chance of Becoming President

Deadlocked Election: 24% Chance of Happening

Electoral Map: Based on Current State Polling

Rubio: 272

Warren: 235

Sanders: 3

Tied States: 28

[NHI]

State Polling: Oct. 21, 2016

Arizona:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 42%
Paul: 3%
Sanders: 1%

Nevada:
Rubio: 49%
Warren: 44%
Paul: 4%
Sanders: 2%

Oregon:
Warren: 47%
Rubio: 39%
Sanders: 10%
Paul: 2%

Colorado:
Warren: 43%
Rubio: 40%
Paul: 7%
Sanders: 7%

New Mexico:
Warren: 49%
Rubio: 45%
Paul: 2%
Sanders: 1%

Hawaii:
Rubio: 34%
Warren: 31%
Sanders: 27%
Paul: 7%

Ohio:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 45%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 2%

Wisconsin:
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 47%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Michigan:
Warren: 46%
Rubio: 45%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

Pennsylvania:
Rubio: 47%
Warren: 45%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Virginia:
Warren: 48%
Rubio: 46%
Sanders: 1%
Paul: 1%

Minnesota:
Warren: 45%
Rubio: 44%
Sanders: 8%
Paul: 1%

New Hampshire:
Warren: 34%
Rubio: 33%
Paul: 15%
Sanders: 13%

Maine:
Warren: 39%
Rubio: 37%
Paul: 9%
Sanders: 9%

Missouri:
Rubio: 50%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 3%
Paul: 1%

North Carolina:
Rubio: 48%
Warren: 44%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

Alaska:
Rubio: 45%
Warren: 37%
Paul: 11%
Sanders: 5%

Illinois:
Warren: 50%
Rubio: 43%
Sanders: 2%
Paul: 1%

National Polling: Four Way Race (Rubio +3)

Rubio: 44%
Warren: 41%
Sanders: 5%
Paul: 4%

National Polling: Two-Way Race (Rubio +2)/b]

Rubio: 49%
Warren: 47%

538 Election Prediction: Tracking % Oct. 21, 2016

Marco Rubio: 43% Chance of becoming President

Elizabeth Warren: 33% Chance of Becoming President

Deadlocked Election: 24% Chance of Happening

Electoral Map: Based on Current State Polling

Rubio: 272

Warren: 238

Tied States: 28

I think there is a mistake on this map because actually Sanders is the one who is leading in Vermont, right? So Vermont should be coloured in green, not red.

Either that or Tossup...

Also, shouldn't Hawaii still be a tossup? Rubio's only up three, and there's still room for either Warren or Sanders to win it.

I've corrected Vermont's color to reflect Sanders' lead.
I colored Hawaii blue, because that map was representative of the polling in that particular thread - where the candidates were tied I left them gray, if they were leading by one or two I colored it for them.

I will post a proper battleground map shortly.

[NHI]

Battleground Map:

Solid Color: Candidate is all but certain to win state. (60%)

Average Color: State is leaning in the candidates' direction (40-50%)

Light Color: Candidate is leading based on current polls, but the state is considered close. (30%)

Marco Rubio: 268

Elizabeth Warren: 231

Bernie Sanders: 3

Ron Paul: 0

Solid Rubio States:

Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi South Carolina, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, North Dakota, South Dakota

Likely Rubio States:

Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, Montana, Iowa, Texas, Georgia, North Carolina,
 Indiana, Maine CD 2, NE CD 2

Lean Rubio States:

Pennsylvania.

Safe Warren States:

D.C., Maryland, Massachusetts

Likely Warren Sates:

Washington, Oregon, California, Virginia, Delaware, New York, New Jersey,
 Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maine CD 1, Illinois

Lean Warren States

Colorado, New Mexico, Minnesota, Ohio.

Solid Sanders States:

Vermont.

[NHI]

Granting extension until Tuesday. If needed further then pm me

[NHI]

Any further extensions needed?

[NHI]

October 31st - Election Day

The final slog before voters head to the polls and elect the 45th President of the United States. Senator Rubio is holding onto his lead and has seen movement in the polls, particularly in the Midwest and RustBelt. Senator Warren for her part is trying to hold together the Obama Coalition, while dealing with Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders, who’s numbers have dropped is still Polling well in places Warren will need to hold on Election Day. Congressman Paul meanwhile, caps off the final sprint with a rush of endorsements and fundraising; raising the stakes for his campaign.


538 Presidential Election Tracking
Rubio: 47% chance of winning
Warren: 31% chance of winning
22% chance of a tie or deadlock Election.


This round will last until Tuesday at 10:00 pm.
I will be posting pundit predictions and final polling later