Edouard

I am currently through a Ph D of law, aged 26, I got a bachelor in law age 21 and a LLM at age 23. I priorized law for job opportunities even if it was not a default choice, now I am doing fine in my Ph D, I would tell you that working on my thesis brought me a lot of knowledge and critical thinking, even more than my two previous degrees. For me it is a necessity to finish the Ph D around age 28, not after 30 for certainty and so I work hard every day for it. I am for low tuition fees because I think meritocracy is betterly ensured with low tuition fees. Yes I know that loans are affordable but it push people to get into job quickly or to have good parents who can cover for the fees. With high tuition fees I would be forced to get a part time job right now. I still believe that at least degrees should be made in link with what they cost, I disagree that a LLM in arts should cost 250k.

@vcczar this is the most unpredictable election since 1948 likely Trump could be convicted before election day and the impact is unsure How many republicans will stop voting for Trump especially "Haley" voters compared to 2016 and 2020 Each nominee could have a sudden health issue How many people were not saying they vote for Biden due to his age perception and the situation in Gaza but will ultimately go back to vote Those datas say there is way too much uncertainty. I think it could be the most unexpected election since 1988 and for an incumbent the most unexpected one since 1948. In terms of unknown future swings of course.

Democratic campaign manager : Joe Biden What do you advise your candidate to do to excite his base to ensure they come out to vote? I would get Joe to release more Q and A on social networks. What do you advise your candidate to do to get the more radical-leaning voters to come out and vote for your candidate? For Dems, these would be Sanders/AOC fans, for Republicans, this would be Ron Paul fans and people to the right of MTG and Boebert. I would recall all actions that have been done during the administration and all plans which have been stopped (canceling student debts / back into Paris' agreement / Congress push for Roe v Wade) and especially play the "drill baby drill" of Trump for those voters. Showing not only what we have done but also the alternative and why it's important to stick with what we can try to deliver. What do you advise your candidate to do to encourage moderates to come out and vote for your candidate? I would recall all bipartisan accomplishments under Biden. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over undecided, unaffiliated independent and swing voters? Both try to simplify the understanding of what our policies are and how we listen more to the center compared to republicans for the swing voters. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over women voters? Promise that if Democrats have a majority in Congress, abortion will be protected by federal law. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over black voters? Recall what has been done notably for social equality and compare to what Donald says about black voters for example in South Carolina. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over Hispanic voters? For Mexicans emphasize on social issues, for Cubans and Venezuelians emphasize how the bigger authoritarian threat is Trump, not democrats despite economical broader proximity with the regime they fled. I would compare January 6th to coups in Latin America. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over white voters without a college degree? I would put more time on showing how democratic policies protected their social status and assume a tougher communication on immigration and how democrats wanted to fix it but Trump blocked it for political gains. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over suburbanites? Advocate particulary on moderate issues and the infrastructure plan they benefited from. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over urbanites? Just recall what has been said before seems enough. What do you advise your candidate to do to win over youth voters and college students? Once again student debt pledges, cultural comparision between democrats and republicans. What do you advise your candidate to do to dissuade supporters of your opponent from voting at all? I would talk to the Haley voters to invite them to not submit to the tactical voting, not sacrify the sanctity of their party for some tax cuts but show that they want respect of the Constitution first. What general on-campaign advise do you have for your candidate? Calculate the time where he is "strong enough" to deliver online content. Go out in tactical times when he feels strong enough. If you had your candidate reiterate 4 campaign promises as a central theme of the campaign, what would these four things be? Put a compromise on abortion into federal law, fix immigration, protect the US Constitution and rule as bipartisan in a second term, promote and save environment, stabilize the economy and reduce deficits.

I will vote for Renew Europe during the european elections this june. However the european parliament is pushed to broad coalitions due to the rise of eurosceptic parties so the european commission ends up a mixt of socialists greens and liberals.

That is a good question and I will be a little bit teasing on this In most areas the "competence" is linked to the merit. If you want to become a doctor, a professor, a lawyer, you don't need votes but you need to be excellent in your domain. That is not the request with elections. Free and fair elections are the only factors to determine who is a legitimate elected official. This is fair, that is the consequence of the universal voting system which also has others qualities. As for the US Supreme Court I have clear direct proposals. I might be wrong, but my perception of the Supreme Court is that untill the 70s it was a place where presidents sent their good friends who had helped them and had high qualities but just as a "thanks" or to put some symbols of society who were good jurists, not in the idea to create some reforms. Maybe also because US parties were less polarized too. So the Senate could give 90 votes to barely anyone. It started to change from various reasons, first when the Supreme Court had to deliver political solutions through decisions instead of Congress like Roe v Wade (I am pro choice) or Obergefell but there are plenty others like Lawrence against Texas. In university people tended to say that politicians prefered to let problems get to the Supreme Court rather than Congress. The problem is, that if you transfer decisions from the Congress to the Supreme Court, you also transfer politic to the Supreme Court and federal circuits. And this is how we end with this "We need more blue guys in the circuit to protect our rights". Appointment of federal judges become like a Congress election, each party needs to get the most "seats" on its side. This is so wrong in so many ways. Yes a person is never entirely neutral, but judges should be appointed regarding their merit and their impartiality, not their political color. That's how the appointment of every judges in the US like in the Supreme Court has become a political issue. Mitch McConnell also argues that senate blockings in the 2000s helped this, but in my opinion it also started when Congress decided to not vote on key national social issues such as abortion or same sex marriage, what they finally did last year. And they should have also found a compromise on a national legal right for abortion. That is sure, is that judges should be elected according to their merit (which is the case most of the time) but also their impartiality (which is not so much important as a criterium nowadays for appointments). That is why I come with several proposals : Proposals. Raise the quorum to 60/66 in the Senate for appointing US supreme court judges (idealistically 67). Create a commission on selecting candidates for the Supreme Court or federal judges which should always be made in a way that prevents a party from owning a majority of seats in it. Modify the election of judges and prosecutors in some states by an independent commission system of selecting candidates who would propose names which the local authority should then confirm by picking in the list of proposed names based on their merit and quality.

As an european I could provide some infos about the countries I know but in most of these countries yes the issue is the immigration crisis. Europe has received a very high number of requests compared to the rest of the world at the exception of Lebanon and Turkey. But another important factor is different in the US compared to Europe In north america there is a lot of "choosed immigration" meaning that the US and Canada so far have restricted their official immigration to priorize the national needs, while it's not the traditionnal custom in most of europe. For example if you marry a french citizen you can get the citizenship after a couple of years while it's not possible to get the canadian citizenship this way (I didn't verify the US). I do not say that this is bad, but the way north america selects their immigration also prevented it from becoming a major political issue contrary to europe which has been strongly impacted by the migrant crisis since 2015. Even when the far-right is not in power, there has been a huge push for governments in europe to toughen laws on immigration since about 10 years https://www.politico.eu/article/emmanuel-macron-immigration-bill-france-marine-le-pen/ And so right now there are polls saying that for example in France 70% of voters think that there is a too high immigration even if french numbers are about the same than US ones per capita. In Denmark the socialist government has only reduced the far-right results by restricting immigration. Overall there is a huge push in europe for toughening laws on immigration.

What surprises me the most in this election cycle is how good RFK junior is doing. It's unprecedented In my life, and I am no longer that young, it takes to go back to 1992 to see a third party candidate doing so well. Even Clinton vs Trump 2016 did not see a third party candidate doing that well. Yet I wouldn't say that the conflict in Gaza is what hurts Biden the most but inflation certainly is. Then immigration as you said. Inflation should go down, immigration is a tough issue for democrats.

(At this point it's more a circus than a real primary 😛)

@Edouard remains loyal to his party ticket BUT calls to a moderate coalition for forum Congress. Edouard : As a democrat I remain faithfull to my party ticket as long as the program is done as promised, however I hope that a majority emerges in Congress, which would be ready to push our government to reduce public deficits. I say, let's invest in education and healthcare yes, but not by simply borrowing to foreign and national investors, the future of our children is in the balance. I am not someone who will give a debt to my children while I will enjoy retirement.

@WVProgressive it is time to put the national guard around the Capitol

Ed replies to Prongle : The Supreme Court could have allowed the entire state of Florida to recount, but it decided in a totally biased way to stop the recount. The majority of the Supreme Court regrets this decision today, and it has contributed to dividing our Supreme Court and our country. What you're saying is absolutely wrong. The Supreme Court's decision was accepted, but it was a wrong decision which had to be accepted. Did Bush win or lose? We will never know because the Florida recount has been interrupted. I invite you to reread the opinion of a Republican-appointed judge: If you want a court full of judges appointed by the Democrats to be able to stop the recount of a close state in the future if it plays out a presidential election, good for you, you accept that risk.

Ruth Baden Ginsburg was right to say that and Congress should have legislated on Roe v Wade rather than the Supreme Court. The problem is that the current Supreme Court is also meddling in the law of the states by responding to absolutely unjustified requests for Justice to strike down non-discriminatory legislation. Do we need to talk about Justice Clarence Thomas, who wants to overturn gay marriage? Or do you want a Supreme Court to be able to stop the recount of states if one day the election of 2000 is repeated in reverse? To take just the latter case, do you think it's right for Sandra O'Connor to come out in 2013 and say that the Supreme Court should not have taken this case, almost 13 years after the 2000 election closed? I'm telling you, you're playing poker, you're happy for Bush v Gore, happy for the overturn of Roe v Wade, but if tomorrow the same thing happens to you in reverse, and the Supreme Court claims that a state where you live could be violating your constitutional rights or would be supporting a Democrat you'll be the first to cry my friend. Don't gamble the future of your freedoms and the unity of the country on the chance of a few thousand voters in a few corners.

Edouard replies to Prongle : Our proposal is an actual check and balance. The separation of powers may be a concept of Montesquieu, but it was not France that implemented it, but the United States of America in 1776 and beyond. Think about it for a minute. At the moment you're quite happy to have a conservative majority on the Court, but if tomorrow the Court were filled with the Twitch contacts of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and they decided that free trade or low taxes were unconstitutional, what would you do? Would you pack the Court? This is what those who want to take over the judiciary are up to, a fight to the death that will break this country apart. You have the right to play poker, my friend, with your constitutional freedoms in the hope that a few votes in key states in the Senate and during presidential elections will save your freedoms, but I prefer to preserve yours and mine before the United States becomes Victor Orban's Hungary.

Ed replies : Shortking is still a moderate to us, but his plan to appoint "Amy Coney Barrett" kind of judges is not in our philosophy. The current issue of the Supreme Court is that it is often being used even against states' rights when they do something progressive if the majority of the court is conservative, and votes of Amy so far have showed that she is more a conservative than a pro states' rights. Also we got serious compromises with Blood platform, only deficit is an issue for us but to be honest there are few people planning to do cuts and we do hope that Congress will take care of the deficit. This is why we are voting for Blood to the end. YET, we invite Prongle to watch Napoléon together this november.

Edouard endorses @The Blood following party platform. Edouard : Listen, Blood found acceptable agreements on very limitated points. Her platform is still progressive on fiscal and social issues. I actually still disagree with Blood on fiscal deficits, but her message has evolved a little bit on fundamental issues this country (or rather forum) faces. Currently excepted me, all candidates remaining in the current election were pushing for partisan fighting. What's the end of it, a second civil war? With the compromise found on Blood platform, it still is a progressive platform which is not mine, but which at least tries to heal the fundamental problems of this country and does not gamble the future of women, LGBT and others communities with election results, because we do risk the rights of all of these groups and communities in case of an election defeat.

For point 2. If you like direct democracy, and that on a lot of issues, people wants conservative things through referendums, should this be enforced as the law of the people? Because the point is, we're all ideological minorities here, in bigger groups which find compromises. I would argue on point 4 that free education for all is like a flat tax which equally affects the poors and the richs but let's focus on point 2 :).

I would argue with those points @Blockmon😉 Let us take the previous points. For example, without gerrymandering reform, one party could retain the US House of representatives with fewer votes and that party might not be the Democrats. Likewise, from the moment we accept partisan appointments, we must accept a Supreme Court with certain very conservative judges who can interfere in certain economic or social questions. To accept the rules of partisanship in one direction is to risk it in the other. Otherwise, ensuring that children of low-income parents have free education is social democracy. As well as continuing to improve Obamacare. It's not as revolutionary for Obamacare as what has been said before but it's not that centrist. There are other points which are more moderate, however yes.

Preventing the further collapse of the separation of powers by saving the Supreme Court integrity and ending gerrymandering in 50 states at once are actually the biggest proposed changes of all platforms. As for Education and Healthcare : -Improving Obamacare is not bad. -Making education affordable including at university for 80% of americans is not being too moderate.

Current situation of each primaries (Sorry for the late 1990s and early 2000s kids that feel old, I do the same right now)

Edouard replied to this comment : "I didn't get my campaign funds from Stalin"

Edouard replies by inviting Blood to find a compromise by eating together some good "freedom fries" in Capitol D.C. "I can't exclude some Cajun fries but we will try to stick to the freedom ones" replied Edouard Edouard also stands on the idea that Louisiana is not a lost territory for Democrats. Commenting on Yang he replied "I will give Blood this point. Let's keep doing the MATHS but by remaining additions with distinctions. Our only way FORWARD is united." He however teased in a final comment "We might have some orange juice with these freedom fries." In reply to Maoist propaganda.

Edouard who gained supports, becoming second ex aequo in the democratic primary commented on Dakota Hale interview "It's difficult to be a libertarian in the conservative area nowadays. I hope he doesn't get endorsed by Ben Shapiro or Matt Walsh, as for me, I am too far from being endorsed by the Young Turks." Edouard also saluted the sudden rise of Prongle as leader of the Republican primary, and for saluting his own rise in the polls unleashed some friendly memes on his competitors.

@WVProgressive you are totally responsible of RPing) Jake Tapper : This evening we welcome the third candidate in the voting intentions for the nomination of the Democratic Party, Edouard! Edward, good evening. Edouard : Good evening Jake. Jake Tapper : Why are you in the race for the Democratic primary? Edouard : I think that we Democratic Party has a lot of qualities and abilities, but let's also say it, from different ideological branches. Me and Hestia belong to a democratic party that can take back states considered lost, Vcczar Orange and Blood feel the Bern at some ways, Rezi is undoubtedly the bridge between me and Hestia as well as our bernies bros, 10centjimmy represents the necessary internationalism to the Democratic Party while Blockmon represents what I would call the base of the "Nader" vote which cost us the presidential election in 2000. Wvprogressive in fact represents the Democrats in West Virginia that we lost as well as those in many southern states. The Democratic Party therefore has all its diversity, but we must see which of these branches has the most to bring to the country. Jake Tapper : And you think its you. Edouard : Well, I would probably say the same for Hestia, but for what concerns my platform I do consider that I am the best democratic candidate for two main reasons. It's not true to say that we're going to take back Florida, North Carolina and Texas without having an absolutely clear message about the dictator that is Maduro, about a greater incentive for the Castro regime to apologise and become a democracy, about a fair fiscal compromise and a message of authority that will not only bring back the older vote but will also make lost states reachable at a stroke. I think that my message of leadership on security and immigration is one that the Democratic Party needs to embrace in order to become competitive again with an electorate that it has lost, just as it is important to have an aggressive monetary policy against inflation. These issues, I guarantee you, if treated seriously, could even make the Democrats competitive again in rural areas without us having to abandon the fundamentals of our party, i.e. societal liberalism and internationalism. The second point, however, and this is where my platform really stands out, is that I'm practically the only one, apart from Hestia, to clearly defend AND a solution to gerrymandering, AND a solution to the colonisation of one of the three powers. This country will not heal unless a national commission is put in place that forces all states at the same time to stop creating bad constituencies. Why would you do that if the neighboring state doesn't follow the rules? In our current system, a state that respects equal voting is a naive, candid state, I want its example imposed and that will only benefit all Americans without disadvantaging any one party. The Supreme Court is undoubtedly the biggest issue, we have become accustomed to sending our blue and red representatives to the Court. We only have the decency to replace Democrat with Liberal and Republican with Conservative when referring to them, because to endorse their political labels would end up affirming that the Supreme Court is a third chamber of Congress, with less regular and much more opportunistic elections. That's without mentioning the federal judges, who are just as much appointed for party political purposes rather than to enforce the law. They can and most of the time they simply enforce the law, but they are not appointed for doing so. It's time to depoliticise the appointment of judges in this country as much as possible. My candidacy is a bold one that seeks to heal the United States of America of the greatest division that is eating away at its very core. Jake Tapper : Do you remain hopefull for 2024? Edouard : I am proud that we are 20% of the party according to polls, I will keep pushing to reduce national internal divisions.

@ConservativeElector2 pulled a Bush on @Fbarbarossa (I will obviously reply to Pope Pius after :))

This poll basically shows the great political spectrum of this quite tiny forum when we think about that