Forum Primary First Runoff

[Rezi]

Personally, I think we should deadlock the Dem convention so I can be nominated as a compromise candidate.

[The Blood]

4 minutes ago, Rezi said:

Personally, I think we should deadlock the Dem convention so I can be nominated as a compromise candidate.

"You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of bureaucracy!" - Rezi, probably

[Pius XIII]

DITCH THE DOPES, CHOOSE THE POPE

                         PIUS 2024

[Blockmon]

11 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Did you not see where I said make elections publicly funded only?

Like I said before, your campaign is as good as The Blood. But I still have hard time with 2a opinion and (to me) moderate options. I did not see that statement initially but that still is not enough to me as lobbying is till supported by your campaign. 
 

 

10 minutes ago, Edouard said:

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.

1. I never said that I don't support those, hell I want to drastically overhaul the system that founders gave us as it simply shit. 
2. Partisan Appointment and supreme court is nothing but lite oligarchy to me, I want to get rid of this fucked up system and replace it with something that will ACTUALLY represent what the law should be. "We the People" Shall be enforced instead of ignored.
3. I never disliked bipartisanship but working with people who try nothing but keep a hierarchy of wealthy, is really hard. I still would like to work to keep somethings safe such as 2A and budget balanced. But somethings are not negotiable to me.
5. That first proposal is not social democracy, Free education for all is social democracy. That first proposal is American liberalism, The second: Obamacare should have had a public option but now, healthcare is in full crisis mode with mental health  and personal health on decline. We need M2A.

[DakotaHale]

@WVProgressive me and you independent unity ticket??? 😳

[Edouard]

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 :).

Edited October 3, 2023 by Edouard

[The Blood]

1 minute ago, DakotaHale said:

@WVProgressive me and you independent unity ticket??? 😳

Dakota are you cheating on me? 

[OrangeP47]

6 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Like I said before, your campaign is as good as The Blood. But I still have hard time with 2a opinion and (to me) moderate options. I did not see that statement initially but that still is not enough to me as lobbying is till supported by your campaign. 

As I said, if "lobbying" is banned, you'd not be allowed to even talk to your elected officials, which I don't think is what you want.

[Blockmon]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

As I said, if "lobbying" is banned, you'd not be allowed to even talk to your elected officials, which I don't think is what you want.

Monetary lobbying is the more specific term I should use. That is what I want to ban, advocacy and other ways to influence your politicans is something I support.
 

 

5 minutes ago, Edouard said:

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 :).

Full Direct Democracy to me is nothing but the submission of the majority to the minority. That is why I never said that I want to change the entire Constitution, it has some great ideas of giving power to minority groups but it still needs fixes to its other passages. It needs more checks against that power given to minorties instead letting direct democracy skip the issue of obstruction by politicians.

[DakotaHale]

9 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Dakota are you cheating on me? 

You rebuffed me if I'm not mistaken

[The Blood]

Just now, DakotaHale said:

You rebuffed me if I'm not mistaken

I showed interest! All I ask is that you adopt my platform in its entirety and pledge yourself to resigning as soon as elected, that I may take office. 

[Pringles]

3 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

1. I never said that I don't support those, hell I want to drastically overhaul the system that founders gave us as it simply shit. 

Reformist attitudes are fine and necessary throughout long periods of democratic government. However, I don’t think you have a clear understanding of our system, our Constitution, our checks and balances. It’s clear to me that you haven’t had an education in Enlightenment thought. I would recommend taking courses on this in college in order to lay a foundation of WHY the government is this way in the first place. 
 

On your second point, that is your opinion. The law shouldn’t be a matter of personal whim. There are genuine arguments made by many judicial philosophies. It is important to respect them even if you disagree with them. You are taking “We the people” out of context completely. The people have their say in the halls of Congress, in choosing the President, and in electing the Senate who appoint Judicial branch officials. The people have quite a say on what happens here. And frankly, if we had it your way we only need to go back 60-70 years for “We the people” to uphold school segregation. 
 

3. This isn’t a lesson in politics. It’s a lesson in life. You are going to have to work with people you don’t like. You don’t agree with. You may even hate them. In the words of Harry Truman: “Be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.” At least try to have a coherent ideology that isn’t pulled from fantasy land. 
 

What hierarchy of the wealthy? This isn’t a hereditary society. People who are wealthy contribute a lot to this country, and tearing them down on misguided fanatic egalitarianism won’t solve the grievances of the envious, nor the poor. Obviously, there’s also a lot of bad wealthy people. Refer to the lesson in point 3. I’m fully in favor of reasonable regulation on this front depending on the specific issue. 
 

Point 4, (Even though you said 5): There is no such thing as “free education.” Learn the ramifications of this policy, and perhaps what personal responsibility is. Scholarships, college funds, grants exist, even if I do believe we should target high tuition fees. Education is the investment opportunity of a lifetime. Our ancestors cannot say the same. Why not reflect on this great progress? That all of us, largely based on our own merits can receive a good education and have good paying jobs.

Finally have you ever considered why public option failed? Why there is so much opposition to universal healthcare enforced by the Federal Government? It’s easy to blame things on the big bad companies. But the truth of the matter is there are millions in this country who are content with their private care, including my family. Obamacare, while a program with good intentions, utterly failed in its promise and delivery. In this country, a country so large at that, any time these healthcare initiatives have been proposed they have largely failed or been defeated. Any state wishing to act on this, passed by their legislature is free to do whatever they want. But I would recommend actually examining why this country does not have the policies you push on this front, and examine why they’ve failed time, and time again throughout history since the end of WW2.

[WVProgressive]

5 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

@WVProgressive me and you independent unity ticket??? 😳

Maybe, maybe not. If Ed wins I'll probably vote for him, otherwise... who's to say. What's your opinion on mRNA vaccines?

[Eugene]

FRESH OFF THE PRESSES! LEAKED MEETING BETWEEN THE BLOOD AND ORANGEP47 REVEALS THEIR TRUE IDENTITIES!

[The Blood]

4 minutes ago, Eugene said:

FRESH OFF THE PRESSES! LEAKED MEETING BETWEEN THE BLOOD AND ORANGEP47 REVEALS THEIR TRUE IDENTITIES!

At least pull up my actual profile, smh.

[Pringles]

19 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

Monetary lobbying is the more specific term I should use. That is what I want to ban, advocacy and other ways to influence your politicans is something I support.

While combatting corruption and “Dark Money” is important. Lobbying on all fronts is a sign of spirited and healthy democracy. To ban it would infringe upon our rights as free men and citizens of the USA. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Pringles

[DakotaHale]

1 hour ago, WVProgressive said:

Maybe, maybe not. If Ed wins I'll probably vote for him, otherwise... who's to say. What's your opinion on mRNA vaccines?

Still undecided. I think vaccines in general are the 2nd greatest life-saving innovation (next to the Green Revolution) but I remain concerned about the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines given how novel their research is (the COVID ones being the first widely-available ones ever). I think the science is far from "settled" and more research needs to be done and I'll personally avoid them for now, but I think they should be available (never mandated) for those who want them and have the potential to be more effective than "normal" vaccines.

[Euri]

I think, given the constituency of this forum, a moderate Democratic platform isn’t really hitting the mark (i.e. boring) (which is definitely how I form opinions in the real world)

I’ll drop another vote for Blood, may as well

Edited October 3, 2023 by Euri

[Blockmon]

34 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Reformist attitudes are fine and necessary throughout long periods of democratic government. However, I don’t think you have a clear understanding of our system, our Constitution, our checks and balances. It’s clear to me that you haven’t had an education in Enlightenment thought. I would recommend taking courses on this in college in order to lay a foundation of WHY the government is this way in the first place. 
 

On your second point, that is your opinion. The law shouldn’t be a matter of personal whim. There are genuine arguments made by many judicial philosophies. It is important to respect them even if you disagree with them. You are taking “We the people” out of context completely. The people have their say in the halls of Congress, in choosing the President, and in electing the Senate who appoint Judicial branch officials. The people have quite a say on what happens here. And frankly, if we had it your way we only need to go back 60-70 years for “We the people” to uphold school segregation. 
 

3. This isn’t a lesson in politics. It’s a lesson in life. You are going to have to work with people you don’t like. You don’t agree with. You may even hate them. In the words of Harry Truman: “Be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.” At least try to have a coherent ideology that isn’t pulled from fantasy land. 
 

What hierarchy of the wealthy? This isn’t a hereditary society. People who are wealthy contribute a lot to this country, and tearing them down on misguided fanatic egalitarianism won’t solve the grievances of the envious, nor the poor. Obviously, there’s also a lot of bad wealthy people. Refer to the lesson in point 3. I’m fully in favor of reasonable regulation on this front depending on the specific issue. 
 

Point 4, (Even though you said 5): There is no such thing as “free education.” Learn the ramifications of this policy, and perhaps what personal responsibility is. Scholarships, college funds, grants exist, even if I do believe we should target high tuition fees. Education is the investment opportunity of a lifetime. Our ancestors cannot say the same. Why not reflect on this great progress? That all of us, largely based on our own merits can receive a good education and have good paying jobs.

Finally have you ever considered why public option failed? Why there is so much opposition to universal healthcare enforced by the Federal Government? It’s easy to blame things on the big bad companies. But the truth of the matter is there are millions in this country who are content with their private care, including my family. Obamacare, while a program with good intentions, utterly failed in its promise and delivery. In this country, a country so large at that, any time these healthcare initiatives have been proposed they have largely failed or been defeated. Any state wishing to act on this, passed by their legislature is free to do whatever they want. But I would recommend actually examining why this country does not have the policies you push on this front, and examine why they’ve failed time, and time again throughout history since the end of WW2.

1. The reason for the formation of the USA was to make a republic that allowed self-representation, this was fueled by the American Revolution and Founding Fathers' ideals. My ideals of reforming an ever-changing Constitution is not just some radical idea that would have been laughed by Convention but actively supported by many founding fathers. Its why a need for reform and change to the government is not radical in any way but I am just following the ideals established by the Founders, Even so, I never directly not supported themes of Constitution, but the processes created by Founders are outdated and need change. It has only survived this long because of the ability of some wanting to change but we are entering a dangerous time where the generation I exist in would feel a depression greater than what happened 90 years ago.

2.  You make me laugh at the thought that supreme court is nothing but blind judicial system that somehow works. Its never been that way, its always was used as a political tool since its foundations of it. From liberal to conservative, it doesn't matter what you believe on but you would agree that the purpose of supreme court failed. It doesn't take the constitution as a living document instead as a static aka originalist or as an excuse of judicial activism. Then you have judicial societies such as Federalist Society that is nothing but a "PAC/Caucus" in name. I don't understand what the thought of founders had when thinking of a system this easily corrupted by politics. A reform in my opinion is needed.
2b. Now for the topic of "we the people", As I stated in the other post, I do not want a tyranny of the majority. I support what the founders wanted to keep that in check, but I feel they have brought the majority too checked, we need to expand what the majority want. Our political system is this fractured because we believe what our politicans say too much while they enjoy the riches of lobbying and easy elections. Before you start bring up a point that supreme court was what allowed racial segregation to end, WHEN IT WAS THE REASON ON WHY IT EXISTED THAT LONG IN FIRST PLACE. Had we not have supreme court then we would not have had Blacks lose their suffrage and rights for next 100 years.
3. " not hereditary"... huh. most of the wealthy were people who had other rich family members that help them. Even, though I never mentioned the idea of hereditary, by heriarchy, I had meant social class. The wealthy were forced to contribute back in the 30s and 40s to finally get America out of the Great Depression. I am ok with successful millionaires and hundred millionaires but billionaires just do nothing but hoard economic success and undermine the all Americans in economical system of ours. The reason why so many gen z are now supporting socialism is because of the f-ed up trickle down economy which only brought small economical boost. Orange had it right, we have furthered away from Keynesian ideals that now we are suffering from not spending. Until Conservatives and GOP realized that economy is the main issue instead of social culture wars, you can't complain of youth wandering their eyes to leftist ideals and actually staying leftists.
4 (didn't have enough sleep my god). AHA, you honestly think education is still a choice?! It's now a must if you want to survive in this economy, so to accurately survive in this economy system that been left by the previous generations. You first need to be born in near poverty but still having enough survive, then you need to finish a schooling system that seems to either prevent teachers from exposing you to real world or turning into a private ad place where you should spend thousands learning nothing. After you enter a contract at age of 18 to where you up rack +$100k of student debt and learn to live in state of constant poverty by working countless hours of minimum wage. After finally you will buy a house that either you can't afford and have more debt OR you will live in a house owned by corporation that forces you to pay all of your paychecks and have nothing to invest, while the public retirement you have is soon to be either abolished or you will have it at a later age. 
Or you could enter trade school and lose all of you physical strength as your labor union is being destroyed and again you face either state of poverty or have to make corporation that will barely be able to compete against big companies.
Do you see why many in my generation is losing their faith on their government? Why, many see radical solutions then the moderate ideologies of our old. 
4b. Finally, the reason why public option was removed and destroyed was because of big health. They never wanted to see public option as that would destroy their high wages that they spent decades building, causing our system of horrible healthcare. if you bring up a country such as UK or Canada, even those countries Conservative Parties do not dare to try to privatize their healthcare system as almost political suicide. Why just think of yourself in this situation? Why oppose universal healthcare? There are evidence of it being fiscal by allowing an easier process to aduit and manage then a private system. It also helps out everyone, from poor to immigrants, to elderly to young. No matter what you are, you deserve the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Not be robbed by a system that requires only good health or risk the financial death.

Conservatism to me isn't a bad ideology but we have conserved so much that now we are killing ourselves by doing it. Thank god that finally people see that and change is soon to be brought but for now this is why I support The Blood and not Orange. 

[Pringles]

46 minutes ago, Blockmon said:

1. The reason for the formation of the USA was to make a republic that allowed self-representation, this was fueled by the American Revolution and Founding Fathers' ideals. My ideals of reforming an ever-changing Constitution is not just some radical idea that would have been laughed by Convention but actively supported by many founding fathers. Its why a need for reform and change to the government is not radical in any way but I am just following the ideals established by the Founders, Even so, I never directly not supported themes of Constitution, but the processes created by Founders are outdated and need change. It has only survived this long because of the ability of some wanting to change but we are entering a dangerous time where the generation I exist in would feel a depression greater than what happened 90 years ago.

2.  You make me laugh at the thought that supreme court is nothing but blind judicial system that somehow works. Its never been that way, its always was used as a political tool since its foundations of it. From liberal to conservative, it doesn't matter what you believe on but you would agree that the purpose of supreme court failed. It doesn't take the constitution as a living document instead as a static aka originalist or as an excuse of judicial activism. Then you have judicial societies such as Federalist Society that is nothing but a "PAC/Caucus" in name. I don't understand what the thought of founders had when thinking of a system this easily corrupted by politics. A reform in my opinion is needed.
2b. Now for the topic of "we the people", As I stated in the other post, I do not want a tyranny of the majority. I support what the founders wanted to keep that in check, but I feel they have brought the majority too checked, we need to expand what the majority want. Our political system is this fractured because we believe what our politicans say too much while they enjoy the riches of lobbying and easy elections. Before you start bring up a point that supreme court was what allowed racial segregation to end, WHEN IT WAS THE REASON ON WHY IT EXISTED THAT LONG IN FIRST PLACE. Had we not have supreme court then we would not have had Blacks lose their suffrage and rights for next 100 years.
3. " not hereditary"... huh. most of the wealthy were people who had other rich family members that help them. Even, though I never mentioned the idea of hereditary, by heriarchy, I had meant social class. The wealthy were forced to contribute back in the 30s and 40s to finally get America out of the Great Depression. I am ok with successful millionaires and hundred millionaires but billionaires just do nothing but hoard economic success and undermine the all Americans in economical system of ours. The reason why so many gen z are now supporting socialism is because of the f-ed up trickle down economy which only brought small economical boost. Orange had it right, we have furthered away from Keynesian ideals that now we are suffering from not spending. Until Conservatives and GOP realized that economy is the main issue instead of social culture wars, you can't complain of youth wandering their eyes to leftist ideals and actually staying leftists.
4 (didn't have enough sleep my god). AHA, you honestly think education is still a choice?! It's now a must if you want to survive in this economy, so to accurately survive in this economy system that been left by the previous generations. You first need to be born in near poverty but still having enough survive, then you need to finish a schooling system that seems to either prevent teachers from exposing you to real world or turning into a private ad place where you should spend thousands learning nothing. After you enter a contract at age of 18 to where you up rack +$100k of student debt and learn to live in state of constant poverty by working countless hours of minimum wage. After finally you will buy a house that either you can't afford and have more debt OR you will live in a house owned by corporation that forces you to pay all of your paychecks and have nothing to invest, while the public retirement you have is soon to be either abolished or you will have it at a later age. 
Or you could enter trade school and lose all of you physical strength as your labor union is being destroyed and again you face either state of poverty or have to make corporation that will barely be able to compete against big companies.
Do you see why many in my generation is losing their faith on their government? Why, many see radical solutions then the moderate ideologies of our old. 
4b. Finally, the reason why public option was removed and destroyed was because of big health. They never wanted to see public option as that would destroy their high wages that they spent decades building, causing our system of horrible healthcare. if you bring up a country such as UK or Canada, even those countries Conservative Parties do not dare to try to privatize their healthcare system as almost political suicide. Why just think of yourself in this situation? Why oppose universal healthcare? There are evidence of it being fiscal by allowing an easier process to aduit and manage then a private system. It also helps out everyone, from poor to immigrants, to elderly to young. No matter what you are, you deserve the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Not be robbed by a system that requires only good health or risk the financial death.

Conservatism to me isn't a bad ideology but we have conserved so much that now we are killing ourselves by doing it. Thank god that finally people see that and change is soon to be brought but for now this is why I support The Blood and not Orange. 

There are so many fallacies, misconceptions, and disingenuous assertions here. But I will tackle them in a random order. 

First off, I think you assume I am a much older adult than you. I am 21 years of age. I'm currently a Junior at university. I started off my education at a local community college and had 0 debt until this year. The most debt I will have is around 30k once I finish my Bachelor's degree. (Roughly.) So when you talk of "your generation." I would like to point out that while not a part of your generation directly, I am indeed just a tiny step above. 

Second, I never said the Supreme Court is nothing but a blind judicial system that somehow works. I directly pointed out different judicial philosophies. You also have the incorrect definition of what the current Supreme Court's ideological layout is. Almost every Justice appointed by President Trump is considered a Textualist. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch sometimes deviate from this, but deviation is a sign of healthy thinking, is it not? I could go on and list other philosophies as well but it would be redundant.

Third, you can shame and disagree with organizations such as the Federalist Society all you want. But is it outrageous to propose, that your disagreement with them, and their existence as a legal and intellectual outlet are perfect examples of a healthy democracy? How would it be any different than going to an organization deemed fit with your line of thinking, and receiving legal or judicial recommendations?

Quote

Or you could enter trade school and lose all of you physical strength as your labor union is being destroyed and again you face either state of poverty or have to make corporation that will barely be able to compete against big companies.
Do you see why many in my generation is losing their faith on their government? Why, many see radical solutions then the moderate ideologies of our old. 

I don't think you mean this as an insult, so I won't consider it an insult to hardworking men and women who go to trade school, work for a union, and perform physically demanding labor yet have good-paying jobs. Jobs that can raise a family, and live with dignity. Frankly what's hurting these families right now is the direct consequences of the last several years this country has faced: inflation, and rising prices, I'm sure I do not need to elaborate further on this front. 

Regardless, I made the choice to go to a University. I did not have to at all. I live in a place that you would perhaps, likely consider destitute and containing fewer opportunities than the old cities of New England. However, I knew my options, I knew what I wanted to do, and acted accordingly. Frankly, I think it's insulting that your notion of the workers in this country, who enjoy some of the highest wages in the world are all destitute, struggling, and need massive overhauls to their lives that not only would change them permanently, but perhaps, damage them permanently. 

Quote

Finally, the reason why public option was removed and destroyed was because of big health. They never wanted to see public option as that would destroy their high wages that they spent decades building, causing our system of horrible healthcare. if you bring up a country such as UK or Canada, even those countries Conservative Parties do not dare to try to privatize their healthcare system as almost political suicide. Why just think of yourself in this situation? Why oppose universal healthcare? There are evidence of it being fiscal by allowing an easier process to aduit and manage then a private system. It also helps out everyone, from poor to immigrants, to elderly to young. No matter what you are, you deserve the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. Not be robbed by a system that requires only good health or risk the financial death.

Bringing up other countries that are over 40 times smaller than the United States as a whole is not a good example to bring up in a rational argument. The UK and Canada democratically chose their system, it works for them, the same way Social Security works for our country. I won't critique what works in another country generally, though the UK and Canada do indeed have major issues on some fronts, I digress. I'm not just thinking of myself. There are millions of middle-class families in this country that enjoy the freedom to choose their provider, receive a good deal through their employer, and have high-quality care. Are you wanting to throw them off no matter their opinion on the matter? If your philosophy is so "We the people," why can't "We the people" decide what healthcare we want? 

Any state that wishes to provide its own program has every right to go through the democratic process and enact it, I wouldn't dare stop them.

Quote

The reason why so many gen z are now supporting socialism is because of the f-ed up trickle down economy which only brought small economical boost. Orange had it right, we have furthered away from Keynesian ideals that now we are suffering from not spending. Until Conservatives and GOP realized that economy is the main issue instead of social culture wars, you can't complain of youth wandering their eyes to leftist ideals and actually staying leftists.

For the final point I'll make, have you ever genuinely looked at the situation rather than repeating canned lines from The Young Turks, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, or whoever it is that teaches you these one-liners that are repeated by your everyday Twitter users? I don't say that insultingly, really, I don't. It's just that I don't believe you recognize a lot of what you're saying simply isn't true, or it stems from misconceptions, and unsound arguments. 

Do you understand truly, what Keynesianism is? What Trickle-Down theory is? What Monetarism is? Don't just repeat definitions from Left Wing or Progressive outlets. Study through an economics course, and do your own research. Frankly, I've always been of the opinion that the economy is largely situational, even if I have my preferred views on what to do concerning it. 

With that said, good night. I hope you can at least gain something from our discussion because as someone who was all over the place politically until I turned around 17/18 years old, I see a lot of myself in you. I encourage you to take your studies seriously and focus on developing sound arguments. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Pringles

[WVProgressive]

I'll leave the poll open for a little bit longer, but it looks like we'll need a second runoff to determine the Democratic nominee. Otherwise, I'm comfortable congratulating @ShortKing for becoming the Republican Party's presumptive nominee barring a massive momentum shift as late votes trickle in. I know Pringles will be happy about that.

[The Blood]

7 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

I'll leave the poll open for a little bit longer, but it looks like we'll need a second runoff to determine the Democratic nominee. Otherwise, I'm comfortable congratulating @ShortKing for becoming the Republican Party's presumptive nominee barring a massive momentum shift as late votes trickle in. I know Pringles will be happy about that.

They won't tell you this, but Short "King's" actual name is Short KKKing. 

 

Really makes you think...

[Imperator Taco Cat]

Quote

Otherwise, I'm comfortable congratulating @ShortKing for becoming the Republican Party's presumptive nominee barring a massive momentum shift as late votes trickle in. I know Pringles will be happy about that.

I V. D. Runoff has an 9 vote lead when accounting for columnist librul deepstate interference! Stop the steal!