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

Ok, you asked for an explanation and a Republican point of view! Some would say I wasted my time with a lengthy response (not really, because I like to make myself heard) while obviously just using your words - I think theocratic sounds way too harsh, I would call what I favor "faith-based". Anyway your comment's not cool and honestly quite disrespectful. I remember in the past we had at least meaningful political discussions despite the obvious differences and I thought the point of having this forum was political discussion. Dismissing what people write or say just because you disagree with it, is not the point of political discussion.

What do you want to know exactly? As usual I have to add a few things to various answers I have given, but I lack the time to type them out. Nonetheless I'll try to give a short outline on some of my responses, before you can ask for details. I won't deny that I want a Christian-only Theocratic education. I believe the US was founded on a Judeo-Christian background and these traditions should arguably be carried on. Muslim countries also do that and I believe it is ''okay'' for them. I don't think they encourage Christian aspects in their society and that's ''fine'', if they believe that's good for them. Of course my personal belief is that believing in Christ will do his followers greater favors in the end, but I am not totally okay with forced conversions tbh Therefore I also selected the option in which people could opt-out from school prayers. I am a huge supporter of school prayers (that's absolutely no thing where I live), but I wouldn't force children to take part in it, because this would potentially generate even more hate towards Christianity. I don't believe every Muslim is a bad person, just because they are Muslim. I think God will also forgive all those, who were involuntarily raised as non-Christians, if they lived a proper life in their religion despite not following God on Earth. I also won't deny that my animosity towards Islam largely stems from 9/11, Isis, Al Qaeda etc. I am open to Jewish education. I see no problem with that, on the contrary I would encourage Jews to foster their traditions within their community. Also quite fine with Buddhism, but that's not really huge in absolute numbers I guess. Some other things I want to add: I am not 100% in favor of abolishing the Department of Education. I lean yes on that, but I think it would be better to reform it meaningfully instead of abolishing it altogether. When it comes to which group should have the most influence on what schools teach, I also thought about the Church and the military. I think I said already enough on why I believe Religion should play a bigger part in one's education, but I also find the trend that more and more Americans seem to hate their country because of it's past very very concerning. I think a bit of an input from the army on why patriotism and love for the nation that raised one is good, could come in handy here. Of course we should make sure that the military doesn't use their influence here for sinister purposes. That would go too far. On 16) Should college professors be allowed to unionize? Naturally, I don't support unions, but since other professions are allowed to unionize as well, I don't see a reason to exclude college professors here. So I selected yes! On 24 and 25) I actually need to change my answer. As the question is phrased, I believe it is wrong to force someone in a STEM field to take liberal arts courses and vice versa. Optional matriculation for such classes is totally fine. Personally I believe it is a good thing to have a proper knowledge in a variety of fields. On 30) I believe we should look here on what Finland or South Korea do exactly. If it's not an improvement for the US, than there is no need for these "foreign ideas", so I am a bit in the middle of both answers, but I voted to take their ideas up for the time being. Just taking them into consideration can't be bad.

Alexander Stephens will try to convert pliable Mod Henry Smith Lane (85) from Jimmy's faction. @10centjimmy

Rolled for RedCons: No relocations. No ideology shifts.

Surprisingly he fares well worse than I had originally thought. Almost all actions that are listed here, show blunders often combined with poor judgment. I guess what saves him is that everything turned out "somewhat okay" in the end.

RedCons: Backroom track: Oliver H Dockery (NC) Legis track: John P Jones (NV) Gubernatorial track: David Butler (IN) Admin track: John F Miller (CA) Military track: Philip Sheridan (NY) Judicial track: Horace Gray (MA) Private sector: James D Porter (TN) Remove (all after 12 years): Ezekiel Straw (private) William Gaston (Exec) Emerson Etheridge (Legis)

Steven Mnuchin won't be happy about this. Billionaire hedge fund manager John Paulson could become Trump's treasury secretary. The article also mentions former US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Susquehanna International Group founder Jeff Yass and Key Square Group founder Scott Bessent as potential picks. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-floats-billionaire-paulson-potential-treasury-chief-bloomberg-reports-2024-03-13/

For 6, planning/participating in a terrorist attack or aiding an enemy nation (treason) comes to my mind. There are probably many more things I can't think of right now. Generally I believe imposing a death sentence should be done on a case-by-case basis.

Endorse @jvikings1

I don't think that's something bad at all, but it could be argued that he qualifies for eating too much.