ConservativeElector2

I know I have seen her portrait in the past, but I would not have known that this name belongs to this face or any of her offices off the top of my head.

Thanks, however, I wonder where I found the original proposal 😄

Fish will propose: "Grant the president the ability to call for the state militia to defend against invasions by foreign nations or native tribes".

Sprague III will propose "Restrict unfair labor practices, including most kinds of strikes".

I rolled for 25% of the time the politician will propose a bill that helps their faction. 25% of the time they will propose a bill that helps their party as a whole, unless they are “puritan,” in which case they propose their faction’s ideology, because I don't think we have a crisis or a foundational bill exists, obviously. However I didn't roll for either successfully, so I guess the remaining 50% mean that the CPU abstains from proposing a bill.

Couldn't agree more, I even agree that it's in fact a smart move for them to get younger justices on the bench, but I find the way they're trying to do that despicable. I also think that her replacement would certainly be no improvement.

Having an opinion on what may be better for the country/party and organizing a public harassment campaign to pressure someone into retirement are quite different. Maybe there are no trucks touring around against Sotomayor yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if she faced the same pressure as Breyer did. Ironically, these people who were harassing Justice Breyer, probably cried foul every time Trump wrote a mean tweet.

It's disrespectful, but not really surprising when we think back to how some progressive elements treated Justice Breyer.

James W Grimes, IA, 1 Gov (Not Efficient)- Improve Agricultural industry William W Hoppin, RI, 1 Gov (Not Efficient)- Decrease State Gov Jobs Elisha M Pease, TX, 2 Gov (Not Efficient)- Lower taxes

William Sprague III

Keeping Stephens and the faction name.

Personally none lol however, think about what happened shortly before the Dobbs ruling. I think that sabotaging and obstructionism from within exists, if the policy overall isn't liked.

I am fine with that. While I am convinced that there are way too many unelected overzealous bureaucrats who qualify to be ''the swamp'', I think billionaire politicians are fine as long as they do what they're supposed to do. Governing well.

If you invoke me in a discussion, I might get the feeling of being asked. And even if you are not asking me directly, I feel obliged to outline for what I am criticized or at least called out for. I have no problem with being called out, because I am gladly explaining my standpoints. Furthermore, I got the impression that you were wanting (more) Republican responses. Anyway I don't feel like a theocrat myself, because I am tolerant towards people who share not the Christian faith. Like I said above, I am also not in favor of forced conversions, like a real theocrat might be. I assume a real theocrat almost hates anyone not following them or their believes. I don't hate anyone for things I might have another view on. I wouldn't require a faith-based education dictatorially, but I believe it would serve almost all people better. It's not a day-1-of-my-presidency issue for me and I am aware imposing that from above would not be constitutional. I am always a little bit perplexed when someone states they get angry by what others write on the Internet. Maybe I am too apathetic, but even if a Communist would outline his views here, I would not get angry per definition. Somehow that always get's me less enthusiastic about talking about politics, because I actually don't want to make others angry with political beliefs. But yeah I'll forgive you and I also think that you're right, that I might see issues differently, because I am not an American - but I think that adds an interesting outsider perspective. However, what I meant to say with ''but the US...'' is that the overwhelming majority of the Founding Fathers had been Christians, there had been no Muslims or Buddhists and so on. When they wrote "[...] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [...]", I believe they talked about the Christian God. So I think it's valid to say the US has an undeniable Christian background. One can disagree here, but I think that's a fact, for which past politicians don't need to be ashamed. Saudi Arabia was founded as a Muslim country and that's ok within their realm, like I said, I don't believe invading these nations and forcefully converse the population would do any good. That's complicated for me as well. I support school prayers, because I believe it grounds people and religion can be something wonderful, harmonious and peaceful that helps people overcoming bad times. This is also the main reason why I support more religion in the everyday life. It's not to make people uncomfortable, but to help the people. While I support school prayers, I feel conflicted about laymen having the authority to lead them. I'd rather have a silent period of prayer time for everyone individually. I also believe praying is something very personal. Otherwise an ordained school chaplain could do well, but this would be way too complicate to organize. I had to google what wiccans are. I thought it has something to do with magic but wasn't sure. They might not be evil, no idea. However, I have zero tolerance with satanic cults, Church of Satan or whatever. These are very dangerous imho.

RedCons: John M Clayton (DE) takes on Charles Polk Jr