Final Democratic Runoff

[WVProgressive]

Please only vote if you consider yourself a Democrat. After the nomination has been settled I’ll ask for VP nominees, and make a final call for third party bids. Until then I’ll be at a vigil for the moderate wing of the Democratic Party

[The Blood]

Blood Announces Platform “Revisions,” in the Interests of a “United Party and Electable Positions” 

In a surprise twist for the Democratic primary race, The Blood announced that her campaign would be revising key planks in its policy platform, seeking to “unite our party and ensure that my campaign appeals to the silent majority of Americans, those yearning for reasonable progressive change.” The platform revisions are as follows: 

Supreme Court: We must reform our increasingly polarized Supreme Court which is dividing America and is increasingly dominated by partisan interests. My administration would form a nonpartisan commission advising me on nominations, putting forward candidates on the basis of merit, not politics, and I would pursue constitutional reforms enshrining this commission, then appointed by the Senate judiciary committee, and raising the bar for confirmation to 66.  

 

Police Reform: I support firm reforms to ensure police accountability and service to communities. However, my administration would respect the need for well-funded law enforcement and would no longer pursue defund the police as policy.  

 

Election Reform: In addition to my previous views, I would like to add a strong commitment to ending gerrymandering, passing a nationwide ban which assigns redistricting authority to nonpartisan committees in all 50 states.  

 

Immigration: I maintain my previous stance, though as part of streamlining the legal immigration process, we must account for the cultural values of prospective immigrants, and whether they understand and adhere to liberal democratic principles, reserving the right to refuse citizenship and legal entry to fundamentalists and extremists unpalatable to American society.

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Blood

[ConservativeElector2]

5 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Please only vote if you consider yourself a Democrat.

So I'm outta here and my endorsement would likely hurt the candidate xD

[Pringles]

5 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Blood Announces Platform “Revisions,” in the Interests of a “United Party and Electable Positions” 

In a surprise twist for the Democratic primary race, The Blood announced that her campaign would be revising key planks in its policy platform, seeking to “unite our party and ensure that my campaign appeals to the silent majority of Americans, those yearning for reasonable progressive change.” The platform revisions are as follows: 

Supreme Court: We must reform our increasingly polarized Supreme Court which is dividing America and is increasingly dominated by partisan interests. My administration would form a nonpartisan commission advising me on nominations, putting forward candidates on the basis of merit, not politics, and I would pursue constitutional reforms enshrining this commission, then appointed by the Senate judiciary committee, and raising the bar for confirmation to 66.  

 

Police Reform: I support firm reforms to ensure police accountability and service to communities. However, my administration would respect the need for well-funded law enforcement and would no longer pursue defund the police as policy.  

 

Election Reform: In addition to my previous views, I would like to add a strong commitment to ending gerrymandering, passing a nationwide ban which assigns redistricting authority to nonpartisan committees in all 50 states.  

 

Immigration: I maintain my previous stance, though as part of streamlining the legal immigration process, we must account for the cultural values of prospective immigrants, and whether they understand and adhere to liberal democratic principles, reserving the right to refuse citizenship and legal entry to fundamentalists and extremists unpalatable to American society.

The Atlantic Headline: -10 Momentum. “Blood accused of Flip Flopping!!!!”

[Pringles]

@ShortKing I just want to congratulate the Republican nominee and express my utmost support. Against all the odds, both primary, and general election, I will work like Hell to ensure this man a fair showing in the general! Congratulations!

[OrangeP47]

15 minutes ago, The Blood said:

Blood Announces Platform “Revisions,” in the Interests of a “United Party and Electable Positions” 

In a surprise twist for the Democratic primary race, The Blood announced that her campaign would be revising key planks in its policy platform, seeking to “unite our party and ensure that my campaign appeals to the silent majority of Americans, those yearning for reasonable progressive change.” The platform revisions are as follows: 

Supreme Court: We must reform our increasingly polarized Supreme Court which is dividing America and is increasingly dominated by partisan interests. My administration would form a nonpartisan commission advising me on nominations, putting forward candidates on the basis of merit, not politics, and I would pursue constitutional reforms enshrining this commission, then appointed by the Senate judiciary committee, and raising the bar for confirmation to 66.  

 

Police Reform: I support firm reforms to ensure police accountability and service to communities. However, my administration would respect the need for well-funded law enforcement and would no longer pursue defund the police as policy.  

 

Election Reform: In addition to my previous views, I would like to add a strong commitment to ending gerrymandering, passing a nationwide ban which assigns redistricting authority to nonpartisan committees in all 50 states.  

 

Immigration: I maintain my previous stance, though as part of streamlining the legal immigration process, we must account for the cultural values of prospective immigrants, and whether they understand and adhere to liberal democratic principles, reserving the right to refuse citizenship and legal entry to fundamentalists and extremists unpalatable to American society.

I, on the other hand, will not pander to voters, because I know voters understand governing is hard work and they don't want someone who will tell untruths just to win their vote.

[OrangeP47]

This is my roll to channel the malise speech 😛

[The Blood]

1 minute ago, OrangeP47 said:

just to win their vote.

Well I guess you can just lose their votes then, fine by me.

[OrangeP47]

Just now, The Blood said:

Well I guess you can just lose their votes then, fine by me.

[Rezi]

[Edouard]

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.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Edouard

[The Blood]

[OrangeP47]

Spoiler alert:  Moderates don't increase turnout.

[Pringles]

2 minutes ago, Edouard said:

Edouard endorses @The Blood following party platform.

Edouard : Listen, Blood found acceptable agreements on very limitated points. His platform is still progressive on fiscal and social issues. I actually still disagree with Blood on fiscal deficits, but his message has evolved a little bit on fundamental issues this country (or rather forum) faces.

Currently excepted me and Hestia, all candidates 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.

Prongle issues a statement to the press expressing disappointment over this decision.

”How any real ‘moderate’ can endorse such a radical platform is beyond me.”

[WVProgressive]

Just now, OrangeP47 said:

Spoiler alert:  Moderates don't increase turnout.

Spoiler alert: You can’t win an election with only the base.

😛

[OrangeP47]

If you don't stick up for your values when they're being tested they're not values, they're hobbies.

[The Blood]

3 minutes ago, OrangeP47 said:

Spoiler alert:  Moderates don't increase turnout.

Oh, you can win elections with base turnout alone and little persuasion? Paging Beto O'Rourke and Stacey Abrams to relay the good news.

Edited October 4, 2023 by The Blood

[Edouard]

8 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Prongle issues a statement to the press expressing disappointment over this decision.

”How any real ‘moderate’ can endorse such a radical platform is beyond me.”

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.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Edouard

[OrangeP47]

We could get into the back and forth on this, and ironically I do have time tonight, but I'd instead like to point out the irony of this after having recently had to defend myself against Blockmon calling my stances too moderate.  Clearly it's just a media hatchet job either way 😛

[Pringles]

12 minutes ago, Edouard said:

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.

Prongle responds once again. 
 

“The notion that Edouard is a judicial moderate is a complete and total farce. As he attempts to bypass our checks and balances that have stood strong since 1787. He supports placing misguided limits on our Senators’ ability to do their job. Real Americans won’t have it. Let’s keep the Frenchman’s ideas limited in France. Is it even legal for him to be a running mate?! Already we see the man of ‘law’ in violation of the Constitution!”

Edited October 5, 2023 by Pringles

[Edouard]

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.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Edouard

[Pringles]

1 minute ago, Edouard said:

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?

“To equate the current Court to far left radicals such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez further proves how beyond reason the ‘man of law’ is. The current Court protected our 2020 election, stands for religious freedom of the individual, and rejected the independent legislature theory. The only thing that liberals and far left radicals have against it is that it overturned precedent for a right that never existed in the first place. If you think that characterization is too harsh? Don’t take my word for it. Go listen to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

[Edouard]

10 minutes ago, Pringles said:

“To equate the current Court to far left radicals such as Alexandria Ocasio Cortez further proves how beyond reason the ‘man of law’ is. The current Court protected our 2020 election, stands for religious freedom of the individual, and rejected the independent legislature theory. The only thing that liberals and far left radicals have against it is that it overturned precedent for a right that never existed in the first place. If you think that characterization is too harsh? Don’t take my word for it. Go listen to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

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.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Edouard

[Pringles]

10 minutes ago, Edouard said:

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?

“Do you want a national political party telling a state to only recount counties with an African American majority? Tossing out any recount effort in other counties? Tossing out any recount effort in different states?”

10 minutes ago, Edouard said:

I'm telling you, you're playing poker, you're happy for Bush v Gore, happy for the overthrow 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 supporting a Democrat you'll be the first to cry my friend.

“If I’m happy that the Court came in and put the interest of the country over the interest of election interference, sign me on board! The irony here is that the Democratic Party were the election deniers just 23 years ago.”

 

10 minutes ago, Edouard said:

Do we need to talk about Justice Clarence Thomas, who wants to overturn gay marriage?

“One partisan court Justice with a crazy wife shouldn’t discount the reasonable decisions of the Court as a whole. Under your rules you deny the basic humanity of Judges to have at least an opinion on any matter that comes before them. Democrats resort to calling Clarence Thomas an “Uncle Tom.” Do you condone the rhetoric of Progressive Democrats on this front? It seems to me the reverse logic is true concerning you that you accuse me of… ‘playing poker.’ “
 

10 minutes ago, Edouard said:

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.

“I am not sure of how this is relevant here. If anything it’s your beloved presumptive nominee that’s sacrificing unity in order to pander to false moderates such as yourself.”

Edited October 5, 2023 by Pringles

[vcczar]

@OrangeP47 Should be winning in a landslide.  @WVProgressive some non-Democrats are voting.