Washington (US Political RP; IC)

[The Enclave Government]

The Great Debate, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

"Alright, Senator, try this one on for size. What, in your opinion, should be the government's stance on abortion?" Cross asked, drawing many cheers and some boos from the crowd, with a few pro-life and pro-choice signs going up.

"Well, as i've said before, it is both the law of the land and the opinion of many Americans that abortion is legal and should remain so. As to if it is morally okay, that's not my job nor my place to say. However, I do think that the current over-regulation of abortion by State Legislatures that are badly clothed disguises to attempt to shut down abortion clinics are one of the most troubling signs of over reaching government power, and that troubles me deeply as a conservative. I have taken steps in Florida to ensure that abortion clinics - while regulated to ensure the health and safety of women - are allowed to practically exist without bending over backwards 20 times while standing on one left foot. What about you, Senator Cross?"

[Neo-Chicago]

"Well, as i've said before, it is both the law of the land and the opinion of many Americans that abortion is legal and should remain so. As to if it is morally okay, that's not my job nor my place to say. However, I do think that the current over-regulation of abortion by State Legislatures that are badly clothed disguises to attempt to shut down abortion clinics are one of the most troubling signs of over reaching government power, and that troubles me deeply as a conservative. I have taken steps in Florida to ensure that abortion clinics - while regulated to ensure the health and safety of women - are allowed to practically exist without bending over backwards 20 times while standing on one left foot. What about you, Senator Cross?"

"Senator, you seem to be forgetting that there was a time that prohibition was the law of the land, as well. Slavery, was, at a time, legal. Many people spoke out against these things, and many people speak out against abortion as well, however. I'm going to do, as president, what our nation was always about. I'll be leaving the matter of abortion up to the states, because it's not the place for the federal government to limit the power of the states. If you'll recall, this is the very thing that our founding fathers didn't want. What I do want to do federally, is stop all funding of Planned Parenthood, and shift it over to other women's healthcare facilities, that don't provide abortions. They are a business first and foremost, and they should be expected to survive without yours and my taxdollars. And I do realize that the money doesn't go to the abortions, but does it really matter? We can't just, ignore that they perform abortions. The government supporting Planned Parenthood means that we are condoning their practices, including the practice of abortions, and that is just not right. Unlike a certain Super PAC, however, I won't claim that you're going to allow mothers to drown babies, because I know that goes against your moral code. But what matters, especially to these people of Iowa, who you seem to ignore when you're talking about the American people, is that abortion is very, very disturbingly similar. I care about what the people of Iowa think, and I think they've been very clear that the majority of them want to let their state decide, not some far-removed folks in Washington. Now I know you Federalists may think differently, but in the Republican party, we don't agree with the government exercising force over the states when it's unnecessary. This is the perfect compromise, and compromising is something I'll do as president, because I'm not afraid to reach across the aisle just as long as the democrats are willing to do the same."

[The Enclave Government]

"Senator, you seem to be forgetting that there was a time that prohibition was the law of the land, as well. Slavery, was, at a time, legal. Many people spoke out against these things, and many people speak out against abortion as well, however. I'm going to do, as president, what our nation was always about. I'll be leaving the matter of abortion up to the states, because it's not the place for the federal government to limit the power of the states. If you'll recall, this is the very thing that our founding fathers didn't want. What I do want to do federally, is stop all funding of Planned Parenthood, and shift it over to other women's healthcare facilities, that don't provide abortions. They are a business first and foremost, and they should be expected to survive without yours and my taxdollars. And I do realize that the money doesn't go to the abortions, but does it really matter? We can't just, ignore that they perform abortions. The government supporting Planned Parenthood means that we are condoning their practices, including the practice of abortions, and that is just not right. Unlike a certain Super PAC, however, I won't claim that you're going to allow mothers to drown babies, because I know that goes against your moral code. But what matters, especially to these people of Iowa, who you seem to ignore when you're talking about the American people, is that abortion is very, very disturbingly similar. I care about what the people of Iowa think, and I think they've been very clear that the majority of them want to let their state decide, not some far-removed folks in Washington. Now I know you Federalists may think differently, but in the Republican party, we don't agree with the government exercising force over the states when it's unnecessary. This is the perfect compromise, and compromising is something I'll do as president, because I'm not afraid to reach across the aisle just as long as the democrats are willing to do the same."

"How about we stop funding women's healthcare facilities all together? As you said - they are businesses first and foremost and should be expected to make a profit if they wish to continue existing. To compare slavery to abortion is plain wrong. We can argue the morals of abortion all night, but as I said and you said now, it's neither our place nor our time to do so. What we do need to do, however, is to ensure that the government doesn't overreach and choke women's healthcare facilities with obsessive regulation. The greatest example of that, in my opinion, was prohibition. To universally ban a product simply because at the time it wasn't deemed morally acceptable. This is kind of a rhetorical question, but personally I think we would've all been vitriocally opposed to prohibition, and I would've lead a congressional effort to fail the amendment. What would've you done, Senator Cross?"

[Neo-Chicago]

"How about we stop funding women's healthcare facilities all together? As you said - they are businesses first and foremost and should be expected to make a profit if they wish to continue existing. To compare slavery to abortion is plain wrong. We can argue the morals of abortion all night, but as I said and you said now, it's neither our place nor our time to do so. What we do need to do, however, is to ensure that the government doesn't overreach and choke women's healthcare facilities with obsessive regulation. The greatest example of that, in my opinion, was prohibition. To universally ban a product simply because at the time it wasn't deemed morally acceptable. This is kind of a rhetorical question, but personally I think we would've all been vitriocally opposed to prohibition, and I would've lead a congressional effort to fail the amendment. What would've you done, Senator Cross?"

"Now, I would wholeheartedly support ending funding to all women's healthcare facilities... if such a thing could work in practice. However, ignoring the fact that the democrats would drag their feet the whole way through, just in case worst comes to worst and many women lose access to their healthcare, it would be a good idea to have a fallback, would it not? Sort of an insurance policy, metaphorically. My philosophy is, and always has been, that we should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, because blind optimism and blind pessimism are both very quick ways to ruin a nation, among other things. In regard to your second point, slavery was legal, and something many though was wrong at the time, abortion is the same in that regard. That was the only basis to which I was comparing the two. And I notice, that you didn't comment on my belief that it should be up to the states, but I suppose you felt your time would be better spent with a gotcha question, so I'll bite, for once. In a perfect world, where black markets would not immediately spring up after such a law was passed, prohibition would be great. But that world does not exist, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. I would've lead that congressional effort as well, Senator, because the amount of crime prohibition lead to was staggering, and the law was unsustainable. And I'm personally insulted that you insinuate that the only reason in favor of alcohol being banned is it not being 'morally acceptable', as you put it. Alcohol causes tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, accounting for nearly a third of all traffic deaths. Alcohol leads to countless physical assaults, and even murders, as it lowers inhibitions. And I could not put a number, if I tried, on the number of families torn apart by alcoholism, or the number of poor, innocent wives and children beaten because someone had a little too much to drink one night. I can tell you this... because I was one of those children, and I'll never forget what I had to go through, and what thousands of children are going through today. I'm going to let it influence my decisions, because as far as I'm concerned, leading without a heart is exactly the same as leading without a brain." With this, a single tear rolls down Senator Cross's cheek.

[The Enclave Government]

"Now, I would wholeheartedly support ending funding to all women's healthcare facilities... if such a thing could work in practice. However, ignoring the fact that the democrats would drag their feet the whole way through, just in case worst comes to worst and many women lose access to their healthcare, it would be a good idea to have a fallback, would it not? Sort of an insurance policy, metaphorically. My philosophy is, and always has been, that we should hope for the best, but prepare for the worst, because blind optimism and blind pessimism are both very quick ways to ruin a nation, among other things. In regard to your second point, slavery was legal, and something many though was wrong at the time, abortion is the same in that regard. That was the only basis to which I was comparing the two. And I notice, that you didn't comment on my belief that it should be up to the states, but I suppose you felt your time would be better spent with a gotcha question, so I'll bite, for once. In a perfect world, where black markets would not immediately spring up after such a law was passed, prohibition would be great. But that world does not exist, nor has it ever, nor will it ever. I would've lead that congressional effort as well, Senator, because the amount of crime prohibition lead to was staggering, and the law was unsustainable. And I'm personally insulted that you insinuate that the only reason in favor of alcohol being banned is it not being 'morally acceptable', as you put it. Alcohol causes tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year, accounting for nearly a third of all traffic deaths. Alcohol leads to countless physical assaults, and even murders, as it lowers inhibitions. And I could not put a number, if I tried, on the number of families torn apart by alcoholism, or the number of poor, innocent wives and children beaten because someone had a little too much to drink one night. I can tell you this... because I was one of those children, and I'll never forget what I had to go through, and what thousands of children are going through today. I'm going to let it influence my decisions, because as far as I'm concerned, leading without a heart is exactly the same as leading without a brain." With this, a single tear rolls down Senator Cross's cheek.

"Senator Cross, i'm so very sorry. I didn't know. Guys, cut the cameras, please. Give Patrick a few minutes, please."

Commercial Break

---

After the cameras were cut, Senator Cross and Haven went backstage.

"Patrick, i'm sorry, like I said out there.... I didn't know. I'm sorry if I caused you harm by broaching the topic, it was a dumb states rights argument that'd never work. Take whatever time you need, and by all means, I invite you to hit me hard on the next topic. Morally, I deserve it."

[Neo-Chicago]

"Senator Cross, i'm so very sorry. I didn't know. Guys, cut the cameras, please. Give Patrick a few minutes, please."

Commercial Break

---

After the cameras were cut, Senator Cross and Haven went backstage.

"Patrick, i'm sorry, like I said out there.... I didn't know. I'm sorry if I caused you harm by broaching the topic, it was a dumb states rights argument that'd never work. Take whatever time you need, and by all means, I invite you to hit me hard on the next topic. Morally, I deserve it."

"It's alright, Jayson, I'd certainly have done the same had I been in your place. Just... a little close to home, but, I should be fine. Anyway, commercials are almost over, I should be out there in a minute, you go on ahead." Senator Cross told Haven, before having a drink of water. He washed his face off, a bit, straightened his tie, and went back to his podium. "Alright everyone, I'm back, let's... let's get this thing back on track. So Senator Haven, I'm very curious, what's your true stance on gay marriage? A couple of days ago, you implied your support for it in an ad you endorsed, but at the start of the election season, you pretty clearly said that you'd only let gay people have civil unions. I'm curious, should we expect you to flip your position again sometime soon?"

[The Enclave Government]

"It's alright, Jayson, I'd certainly have done the same had I been in your place. Just... a little close to home, but, I should be fine. Anyway, commercials are almost over, I should be out there in a minute, you go on ahead." Senator Cross told Haven, before having a drink of water. He washed his face off, a bit, straightened his tie, and went back to his podium. "Alright everyone, I'm back, let's... let's get this thing back on track. So Senator Haven, I'm very curious, what's your true stance on gay marriage? A couple of days ago, you implied your support for it in an ad you endorsed, but at the start of the election season, you pretty clearly said that you'd only let gay people have civil unions. I'm curious, should we expect you to flip your position again sometime soon?"

"It's not a position flip. In the beginning of the campaign, I endorsed civil unions as a compromise - allowing LGBT couples the federal benefits of marriage while allowing churches the religious freedom to chose to marry who they wish - and there are many churches who will marry any couple that walks into their doors such as Unitarians. Basically, marriage is legally a civil union. Beyond that is ceremony, legally. LGBT couples are entitled legally to a civil union, but I don't think churches should be forced to marry them in their church. That has - and always will be - my position on the topic. What about you, Senator Cross?

[Neo-Chicago]

"I'm a bit surprised that you of all people should be supporting this, when just minutes ago, you disavowed government overreach. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, because that's just an absurd example of the government interfering with people's lives. No, what we need to do, is we need to not define marriage, in any way, at all. It's a cultural institution, and a religious institution, not one of the government. I really could not care less if someone wants to marry their donkey, or an artificial intelligence, because it really isn't the place of the government to tell any of us what love is. Love is an abstract concept, Senator, and not one the government should be dictating. I'm all for letting churches do what they want, but what you're proposing is not the way to do it, and right now, there's no reason at all for any government - federal, state, or municipal - to define it."

[The Enclave Government]

"I'm a bit surprised that you of all people should be supporting this, when just minutes ago, you disavowed government overreach. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, because that's just an absurd example of the government interfering with people's lives. No, what we need to do, is we need to not define marriage, in any way, at all. It's a cultural institution, and a religious institution, not one of the government. I really could not care less if someone wants to marry their donkey, or an artificial intelligence, because it really isn't the place of the government to tell any of us what love is. Love is an abstract concept, Senator, and not one the government should be dictating. I'm all for letting churches do what they want, but what you're proposing is not the way to do it, and right now, there's no reason at all for any government - federal, state, or municipal - to define it."

"But there is, for tax purposes. I'm sure your aware, that most tax calculations are based on if you're married or single to more accurately judge your available income, aswell as for deeds on houses and car leases. I believe that the Government should define a civil union as a legally binding relationship above fiancee or signifigant other, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is seperate from the process and I agree, it shouldn't be touched. But we should make civil unions and the benefits that apply to them available for LGBT couples."

With that, a man in the Cross section of the crowd yelled "AND WHAT ABOUT OUR GUNS!"

"Excellent point! Senator Cross, your turn."

[The Jaclean Empire]

Jack Scalise, Lambert Airport, about to depart for Iowa:

As he sat waiting for his flight Jack looked at his wife he said "You know darling, I'm the luckiest human being on this planet to have you." his wife blushed and smiled then she pulled out a Samsung Galaxy S6 and said "This is you phone now, you have to get rid of your Nokia 6110." "But... I've had this phone for 19 years. It's fine." Jack replied. His wife responded "No, you need to get up to date with the younger generation if you want to win. On that phone are the apps Instagram, Twitter, and Snapchat. They have your recently made campaign accounts on them. You need to check and use them regularly if you want to appeal to the youngsters." Jack tried to argue again but he could tell by the way his wife was looking that he'd end up losing so he said "Fine... I'll get 'hip' as the kids say".

---

Jack Scalise, "It's smart and easy to choose Scalise" rally, Iowa:

The Iowa Caucus - 2016

Jack walked onto stage with applause, and then began to talk "Now before I get down to the politics, I want you all to know that I'm a down to Earth normal guy. I don't pretend to be a multi millionaire super star like other candidates. My net worth is $587,390 and most of that is from my 40% share of my friends' and I's bar in Soulard, Pubzles. I drive a 1999 Grand Marquis with 170,000 miles on it and I had to get a loan to build my new house. I'm not rich, the only people funding my campaign are my family, me myself and I, and you supporters. As I went through my mail I found a letter from a 93 year old woman donating $7.43 and telling me I've restored her faith in politicians and that she was gonna vote for me. That donation and letter mean far more to me than a million dollar endorsement from a soulless corporation to get me to spoil them as president. I'm many things, but a corporate puppet is not one of them. Now to the campaigning, I'm telling you supporters that I'm honest, and I promise to follow through with my promises or I'll die trying. Other candidates will try to convince you that I'm corrupt from the actions of my superiors of a administration in the 70s. However I'm going to tell you that I had no part in their corruption and I testified against them and was the leading reason they were removed from office for corruption. Now another thing my fellow candidates will bring up is my age. They'll say 'Scalise is old' and to them I say yes I'm old." He paused as the crowd laughed and applauded. Then a man from the crowd yelled "I'm 102, believe me sonny boy you aren't old!" the crowd laughed again. Jack smiled and then continued speaking "I may be old, but I understand the younger generations. College tuition cost is ridiculous; believe me when I say that as president I'll lower tuition cost. I'm recently an owner of a Samsung Galaxy S6 and have begun using social media to help get in touch with the youngins. And when I asked my grandson if I was too old to campaign he said 'You're younger than my other grandpa he can't even work his DVD player without help.' The young people in this world are going to grow up in an America where all the jobs are in China if something isn't done. A corporate monkey like some of the other candidates or our current president would say something like 'The rise of China is peaceful and America should accept it.' and that's wrong. The rise of China is like the rise of The Soviet Union, except they are taking away the one large edge we had over the Soviets; our economic strength. I will restore our economic strength and then embargo China until they get their act together and start treating their people properly and start being cooperative with their neighbors. I recommend you vote for me because as chairman of the committee on armed services I'll know what to do as commander in chief. I voted against the F-35 project and wanted to cut the LCS program the minute I realized its flaws. As for my most asked question which is what is your stance on the LGBT community. Well here's my response. Our country says all men are created equal. All men. Whether they are homosexual or straight, black or white, Muslim or Christian, or democrat or republican. LGBT members deserve the same treatment as anybody else gets. My second most asked question is my stance on abortion. I believe that every time you have sex you are risking pregnancy, and in a consensual sexual encounter both partners accept that they could possibly procreate. The child should not have to pay for something its parents did. That's why I think that only if the mother's life is in danger, or the mother was raped should abortion be allowed. My third most asked question is why i defended Jayson Hayven my opponent in the race's atheism. I did this because it's his constitutional right to believe or not believe in whatever he wants and is protected by the 1st amendment. I also defended him because I'm not the kind of guy to bring up something pointless to the campaign just to bring down my opponents. I will win this race fair and square. I am a late arrival to this race, but believe me I can win the nomination with your help, and if you keep supporting me I'll win the presidency. Goodbye and thank you." There was applause as he stepped off the stage but also boos from feminazis waving signs saying "sleazy Scalise is a woman hater."

[Neo-Chicago]

"But there is, for tax purposes. I'm sure your aware, that most tax calculations are based on if you're married or single to more accurately judge your available income, aswell as for deeds on houses and car leases. I believe that the Government should define a civil union as a legally binding relationship above fiancee or signifigant other, but not marriage. The institution of marriage is seperate from the process and I agree, it shouldn't be touched. But we should make civil unions and the benefits that apply to them available for LGBT couples."

With that, a man in the Cross section of the crowd yelled "AND WHAT ABOUT OUR GUNS!"

"Excellent point! Senator Cross, your turn."

"That tax calculation comes from a bygone age when all marriages were between a man and a woman, where the woman was expected to be waiting at the door with the kids in bed and a martini in hand for her husband who's just coming home from work. Take one look around, and if you aren't totally blind, you'll see that we're not living in that era anymore. Both partners in a marriage often work nowadays, and if you're worried about children not being taken care of, I think a child tax credit would be a far better alternative. Now, about guns, as many of you in the audience know, I have a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts. Don't worry, Senator Haven, I'm not in fact packing heat at the moment, because though I don't necessarily agree with the 'gun-free zone' law of this fine institution we're debating at, I respect it and I abide by it. In Massachusetts, I've stood time and time again in favor of second amendment rights, and I believe that anything short of a bunker buster oughta be protected. The only way to protect people from guns, is with more guns. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but believe me, I've thought this through. The problem with gun-free zones like this university is that, if someone wants to shoot up a school, and I know that's a touchy subject, a sign is sure as hell not going to stop them. No, but it will stop the people who care about the law, and who are, in good faith, not armed. In short, no one is able to stop the shooter, not even the teachers, who also aren't allowed to be armed. Rest assured, that under my administration, you'll be allowed to properly defend yourself, provided you haven't committed any felonies, and have a sound state of mind."

[The Enclave Government]

"That tax calculation comes from a bygone age when all marriages were between a man and a woman, where the woman was expected to be waiting at the door with the kids in bed and a martini in hand for her husband who's just coming home from work. Take one look around, and if you aren't totally blind, you'll see that we're not living in that era anymore. Both partners in a marriage often work nowadays, and if you're worried about children not being taken care of, I think a child tax credit would be a far better alternative. Now, about guns, as many of you in the audience know, I have a concealed carry permit in Massachusetts. Don't worry, Senator Haven, I'm not in fact packing heat at the moment, because though I don't necessarily agree with the 'gun-free zone' law of this fine institution we're debating at, I respect it and I abide by it. In Massachusetts, I've stood time and time again in favor of second amendment rights, and I believe that anything short of a bunker buster oughta be protected. The only way to protect people from guns, is with more guns. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but believe me, I've thought this through. The problem with gun-free zones like this university is that, if someone wants to shoot up a school, and I know that's a touchy subject, a sign is sure as hell not going to stop them. No, but it will stop the people who care about the law, and who are, in good faith, not armed. In short, no one is able to stop the shooter, not even the teachers, who also aren't allowed to be armed. Rest assured, that under my administration, you'll be allowed to properly defend yourself, provided you haven't committed any felonies, and have a sound state of mind."

"I agree wholeheartedly, but until we do change it, we're going to have to define civil unions."

"I'm also as much of a second amendment defender as any other Republican, but you have to take into context what our Founding Fathers meant when they wrote that into the constitution. In the 18th century, there were no assault rifles capable of killing tens of people in minutes, hundreds in hours. The Second Amendment was made in the context of flintlocks and muskets, weapons unable to kill many people very quickly and would be useless for a time after running out of ammo. The Second Amendment, we must also recall, was made in the context of being able to revolt against a tyrannical government. Must I remind everyone, there are 50 state armies all perfectly capable of protecting their State from a tyrannical Government should that scenario occur. I don't think you need a M16 7.62mm assault rifle to defend yourself in the street. I do support allowing citizens to carry pistols and shotguns with slugs, as pellets are made solely to maim and cause pain rather then to kill. I support allowing semi automatic rifles for hunting, but, be honest with me. Are you going to carry a rifle slung around your shoulder while walking out and about? No, of course not. We need to re-evaluate what our founding fathers intended for the Second Amendment and the context in which it was made."

[Neo-Chicago]

"Actually, Senator, there were some automatic weapons at the time, one of which Benjamin Franklin referred to as 'Revolutionary', but that is absolutely beside the point. It's funny, a court in my own state agreed with you on this, fairly recently. The Supreme Court, however, did not. And we must not forget that, it was not just a tyrannical federal government that the Second Amendment intends to protect against, but any tyrannical government. The context of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to replenish the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, according to Thomas Jefferson, and the right to a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms are not mutually exclusive, as evident by the fact that almost every state constitution listed them separately. They are simply crammed into the same amendment, like the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press in the first amendment. I recognize that there are some weapons that shouldn't be in the hands of our citizens, like biological and nuclear weapons, but at the same time, it should not be possible for our military to absolutely slaughter the American people, should they choose, with weapons that the citizens were not allowed. I very much doubt that such a thing could ever happen, but as I said before, hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

[The Enclave Government]

"Actually, Senator, there were some automatic weapons at the time, one of which Benjamin Franklin referred to as 'Revolutionary', but that is absolutely beside the point. It's funny, a court in my own state agreed with you on this, fairly recently. The Supreme Court, however, did not. And we must not forget that, it was not just a tyrannical federal government that the Second Amendment intends to protect against, but any tyrannical government. The context of the Second Amendment was to allow citizens to replenish the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, according to Thomas Jefferson, and the right to a well-regulated militia and the right to bear arms are not mutually exclusive, as evident by the fact that almost every state constitution listed them separately. They are simply crammed into the same amendment, like the rights to free speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press in the first amendment. I recognize that there are some weapons that shouldn't be in the hands of our citizens, like biological and nuclear weapons, but at the same time, it should not be possible for our military to absolutely slaughter the American people, should they choose, with weapons that the citizens were not allowed. I very much doubt that such a thing could ever happen, but as I said before, hope for the best and prepare for the worst."

"But preparing for the worst is unnecessary. We have fifty State Armies, and Senator Cross.... If you actually think an average joe with a weapon could stand toe to toe with a trained soldier.... let's just say I really do hope that that situation never comes to pass, and it most likely wont. The State Armies provide a magnitude better protection for the People without causing the death that allowing citizens automatic fire arms that are purpose made to kill a lot of people in not alot of time."

[Neo-Chicago]

"But preparing for the worst is unnecessary. We have fifty State Armies, and Senator Cross.... If you actually think an average joe with a weapon could stand toe to toe with a trained soldier.... let's just say I really do hope that that situation never comes to pass, and it most likely wont. The State Armies provide a magnitude better protection for the People without causing the death that allowing citizens automatic fire arms that are purpose made to kill a lot of people in not alot of time."

"Yes, well, the good thing about citizens is that there are a lot more of us than there are soldiers, but that's beside the point. And, I'm intrigued that you don't agree with preparing for the worst in implausible scenarios, Senator, considering you yourself said earlier that, 'we do not want an American chernobyl.' Anyway, I fully recognize that assault rifles are going to stay banned, but that's the good thing about my willingness to compromise. I'm not some crazy hardliner on everything who would shut down the government for four more years, don't you worry. Now, can we finish this thing up with closing statements, because it's getting late. I'll allow you to go first."

[The Enclave Government]

"Yes, well, the good thing about citizens is that there are a lot more of us than there are soldiers, but that's beside the point. And, I'm intrigued that you don't agree with preparing for the worst in implausible scenarios, Senator, considering you yourself said earlier that, 'we do not want an American chernobyl.' Anyway, I fully recognize that assault rifles are going to stay banned, but that's the good thing about my willingness to compromise. I'm not some crazy hardliner on everything who would shut down the government for four more years, don't you worry. Now, can we finish this thing up with closing statements, because it's getting late. I'll allow you to go first."

"Today, Iowa and all those watching at home, i'm pretty confident that you're looking at the future of the Republican Party, and no offense to the other candidates - probably in about a year your next President of the United States in me or Senator Cross. I'm elated that the people of the GOP have made such wise choices in voting for and supporting the both of us, as I can rest assured that under a Cross or a Haven administration, we'd do well and prosper. Now, of course, under a Haven Administration we'd prosper more, in my opinion, but nonetheless these policies are ones that win elections and help make America a global leader for good. I personally didn't discuss foreign policy because we need to focus on America First, then we can worry about the rest of the world. Now, Iowa, I probably won't be back for a while and i'll be campaigning in New Hampshire and along the road South Carolina, but rest assured i've heard every one of you, and you're going to be represented - whether it be at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, or in the Oval Office next November. America, let's get to work, and let's elect Senator Jayson Haven as the Republican Nominee for President of the United States of America!."

[Neo-Chicago]

"Look, I think- no, I know that you can come to your own conclusions based on what you've seen here today. And I agree with my colleague's statement that either one of us would be worlds better than any one of the democrats, or some of the... less appealing republicans. I'm not going to name any names, and there are other good republican candidates besides us, but I think the polls show what's what. Foreign policy is important, because while we Americans are some of the greatest people on this planet, that doesn't mean we shouldn't care about other people, nor does it mean that it wouldn't be a rude awakening to have a nuclear bomb land on your doorstep one morning. I love you, Iowa, you're all very wholesome and cordial folks, and I couldn't feel anymore at home if I was right back in Massachusetts or Ohio. So rest assured, if it's me in the Oval Office, the only interests I'm gonna serve are yours, America, and so I hope you'll caucus for me. Good night to all of you, and I thank you for both taking time out of your life to either come watch this in person, or viewing this debate on television while you're waiting for the Town Hall tomorrow night, which, as you all know, both of us will be attending. And I'd just like to once again offer my words of gratitude to CNN for very generously offering to broadcast this debate. A vote for Cross is a vote for yourselves."

[Republic of Coldwater]

Room 2112, Sheraton Hotel, Washington D.C
The southern senator stared at the slick, oozing glow of the television as the Republican candidates compromise on all issues, from an assault weapons ban, to "diversity". In the eyes of Taylor, this is what is wrong with the GOP, a flawed, moderate establishment that is unable to handle the true issues of the day. There has yet to be a hardline conservative, one who stands up for the old right, one that was weary of third world immigration, big business, and big government. This, however, is about to change, for soon, Senator Walker Taylor will fly back to Alabama and make an announcement, that he shall be running on behalf of the Constitution Party for the presidency of the United States. He has already made an announcement of a large event in Huntsville, and the media has been buzzing about what may possibly be brewing in perhaps the most uncontrollable, and right-wing of senators in the United States. Some say it is a run for the governor's house, others say its an endorsement of another candidate, and of course, there are those who say that he shall be running for President.

Popular in Alabama, Taylor is expected to attract 12,000 supporters from his hometown and across Alabama, who have long been adamant supporters of their Senator, who is known for his fierce opposition to an encroaching federal government and third world immigration, but before, he is to file his papers to the Federal Election Commission, and to talk to the Constitution Party about a campaign strategy.

Senator Taylor's Office
As the senator walks in, he is greeted by his skeleton crew of staff. Known for disliking big congressional staff bodies, his consists of his Secretary: John, his media consul: Veronica, and two interns who do most of the menial work. Laying his briefcase on his desk, he pulls out a large envelope, and hands it to John. He says simply "Turn this in, to the FEC". John nodded, long knowing the intentions of the Senator, and leaves the room, headed to the FEC offices to turn in this mysterious enveloope.

Constitution Party Headquarters
In a small office space within the suburbs of D.C lies the headquarters of the US Constitution Party. Small and uninspiring compared to the size and scale of the GOP and Democratic offices, it suffices for such a small political party, with one federal office, that of Taylor's. As he walks in, the Chairman of the Constitution Party greets him, as Taylor greets him back and says "I'm running, I'm running for President"

The entire office cheers as Taylor mutters his words, before he makes his remarks to the office, entailing his plan to take the electoral votes of at least a few southern states, and hopefully preventing an electoral majority for either party, allowing him to wager policy in exchange for electors. He never is seeking to win outright, but to institute policy changes the same way George Wallace envisioned in his 1968 run, except this time, the GOP and the Democratic Party are closer in margin, than ever before.

[The Demphorian Kingdoms]

---

Romach declines to endorse, but still draws his eyes to Senator Goran

---

Washington - for the third time this month, Senator Romach (D-Minnesota), the oldest man to serve in Congress since his election to the House in 1964 and the oldest Senator since he was elected to the Senate in 1968, declined to endorse a candidate for the Democratic Party.

Apart from the 2,383 delegates needed to nominate a Democratic candidate for president, there’s another vote that Senator Nedeau and Senator Goran would both like very much: the endorsement of old progressive firebrand Andrew Romach.

Romach, who himself launched an unsuccessful bid to secure the Democratic Nomination against Jimmy Carter in 1980, has been notorious for declining candidate endorsements. Being elected to Senate right at the end of Johnson Administration’s Great Society programs and right into Nixon’s presidency, has been a firebrand liberal since he was ever elected to the Senate. He refused to endorse Bill Clinton in 1992 and John Kerry in 2004, delivering the same response when questioned: “I just don’t see a Democratic nominee in the field.”

The Democratic senator from Minnesota has played coy about backing a candidate, prompting an endless parlor game about when and why. But, as is often the case with Romach, his endorsement is hiding right there in the open for those who take a moment to consider a few key political facts.

Romach became famous in the 1990’s for delivering long filibusters on key pieces of Clinton’s agenda, including Welfare Reform and NAFTA, and financial sector deregulation. While his filibusters have been record long and impressively famous, his declining health in old age has prevented himself from performing such filibusters more often.

Indeed, the 96-year old yellow dog Democrat, with a curmudgeonly face and snarling attitude, could not stomach those who he dismisses as to centrist. Yet while once again dismissing the Democratic Primaries for now, he mentioned and praised one such candidate in the field: Senator Goran.

“If she was to win the Presidency and instate a modern version of Glass Steagall, the same legislation that kept us secure for decades, if she was the win the Presidency and crack down on corrupt campaign finance practices, if she was to win the Presidency then I’d sure have one hell of President I’d love working with.”

But when asked if he was endorsing Senator Goran, he simply said: “No. No endorsements for me today.”

Earlier in the month, he delivered a more clearer explanation about who he would like for President, “Legislative agendas matter, but voters should also ask which presidential candidates they trust with the extraordinary power to choose who will fight on the front lines to enforce the laws. The next president can rebuild faith in our institutions by honoring the simple notion that nobody is above the law, but it will happen only if voters demand it.”

"I'm not just doing it for the heck of it," Romach said Tuesday, according to a report from the Minneapolis Herald-Democrat. "I haven't made that decision yet."

Regardless of when he endorses, when he does, his endorsement will send shockwaves through not only progressive grassroots movements, but Washington as well.

E. J. Goodman (3/23/16)

[Independent Slavic Peoples]

Fokker's Home, West Chester

Representative Fokker woke up groggily that morning, and checked the news. Senator Steinblatt Delivers Rousing Speech, Attacks Fokker on Education. Oh, I how it is. Fokker rose from his bed, and got dressed for the day. He called his secretary at the campaign office, and told her to call the press together. It was time for a press conference.

West Chester, PA

The press were all murmuring, waiting for the Representative to come out on stage. At the moment he appeared on the side of the stage, the cameras were already flashing. Fokker walked out, waving to the crowd of reporters, and climbed up to the podium. "Welcome, make yourselves comfortable, and ask any questions you want. I'll try my best to answer them all." A flurry of reporters stood up, and Fokker chose a young Latino woman from the crowd. "Yes, miss? What's your name?" "Veronica, Mr. Fokker. How did you react to Senator Steinblatt's attacks on your education policy?" Fokker looked out at the crowd, and prepared to explain his education platform to the public. "Steinblatt's attacks were uncalled for, and the assumption that I want to cut education funding is false. I would never cut education funding, in fact, I would raise it from the funds leftover from the organizations that I would cut that only hamper the American people. My only change to the Pennsylvania education system is that it prepares young Pennsylvanians to take on the world and find work, something that Senator Steinblatt is unwilling to fix. So, I officially challenge him to debate. We'll meet in Harrisburg, if he accepts."

"Thank you for your time, sir." Veronica said before she left. "Any other questions?" He picked out a younger, white man with brown hair from the crowd. "Sir, Senator Steinblatt claims to have lowered Philadelphia's crime rate by 12% when he was in office as mayor. What experience do you have to bring to the table?" Fokker prepared himself again. "Throughout Chester County, through plenty of fighting and legislation, I managed to lower the crime rate by 19%. 19%. Think about that for a moment. Now imagine that number being higher, and across the entire state. That's what the Libertarian dream can accomplish." "Thank you, sir."

Much later, Fokker reached his final question. "Sir, what is your opinion on the 2016 Presidential Race?" Fokker wasn't necessarily prepared for this, but he knew what to say. "I have already received an endorsement from fellow Representative Dempsey, and he wishes me the best of luck. So, in return, I personally endorse Republican candidate Representative Dempsey for president." "But sir, wouldn't you rather endorse a Libertarian candidate?" "I'm sorry, but I don't see a truly Libertarian candidate in the field at this time, and I'm too young to run. The closest we can get to a Libertarian in the White House would be Representative Dempsey, so for all my supporters, vote for him in this year's elections!"

The questions ended, and the press went home. So did Fokker, who realized that the Libertarian Party would be pretty pissed about him endorsing a Republican, but he had managed to piss off his superiors plenty of times in Iraq, so he'd be used to it. He'd be meeting Dempsey later, so he hurried home to clean up and get into better clothes.

[Chewion]

Senator Brandon Kiser stands up for the "little guy" and has voted for and proposed several laws that help people that are not apart of the 1%.


Senator Brandon Kiser understands that individual states do not always share the same needs as the nation as a whole and will work with state governments to improve all states.


Senator Brandon Kiser understands that New Hampshire is under attack by drugs and will work relentlessly to stop the drugs that are flowing into our country and poisoning our youth and citizens.


Senator Brandon Kiser stands for America. Senator Brandon Kiser stands for New Hampshire.


Paid for by Jack McGuire.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

University of New Hampshire
Manchester, New Hampshire
Governor Williams waited impatiently for his rival Brandon Kiser to appear from behind stage, with the two campaigns having agreed to do a debate with CNN, on the condition that the network donate 100,000 dollars to the two charities of the candidates' choosing. Williams picked the Thank USA, something that would play well with his platform. Drumming his fingers on the podium, Williams expected Kiser to appear any moment now, for Kiser like him gave speeches with little preparation. However, the old governor believed that unlike him, Kiser did not have a cold calculating mind set beneath all that rhetoric, and says things just for the sake of saying it. His goal would be to back Kiser into a corner. The auditorium was jam packed, with the people expecting it to be a complete bomb throwing marathon, with both candidates just throwing bombs around at each other, with very little discussion of policy.

While, Williams became more and more impatient at Kiser, he decided to crack a few jokes at Kiser's expense, to the audience.

"I guess after seeing that I am here, Senator Kiser must have cried himself to sleep like Senator Cross." Williams told the audience, with loud laughter coming from the audience, while getting a jab at Senator Cross. "I can tell him something I will make him cry a lot harder than gentle Haven made Baby Cross cry in the debate in Iowa. How can you expect to run a country when you cry at every little thing. If he cries to Gentle Haven then Putin is going to give him nightmares for the rest of his life, and scar that innocent child."

That joke received loud applause from the audience, and that was when Senator Kiser walked onto stage.

"Ah, Senator good to see you, I thought you would stay home and cry in your pillow like Baby Cross, we were just talking about that.

The audience laughed at the Governor's comments.

"In all seriousness, I would like to thank CNN for broadcasting this debate, and for donating money to our charities. I would like to let Senator Kiser ask me the first question." Governor Williams said as he gestured for Senator Kiser to ask him a question, establishing an air of superiority over the senator.

[Chewion]

Senator Kiser was slightly annoyed at the governor's cheap shots and decided to start off with a heavy topic. " Governor I want to know, and I know the people want to know your stance on illegal immigration into this country and what you will do to put a stop to it and what your stance is on other border related problems such as drugs coming into this country and being used by millions of Americans.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

So pathetic of him, Governor Williams wasted no time to answer the question.

“As governor of Mississippi I am proud of the policy that we implemented in enforcing the illegal drug trade. I am proud of my record of imprisoning more drug dealers, and drug users, than any other governor per capita. I am also proud to say, that compared to our neighbor Louisiana which has not implemented such a strict drug policy, our crime rate is MUCH MUCH lower than Louisiana's. In fact, I can proudly say that we have the lowest crime rate in the entire Southern United States, something that I have achieved when I became governor of ‘sippi. We should not tolerate any sort of crime at all! We do not choose which laws we get to follow, and which ones we can ignore! I am running on a policy of law and order, and I will stick to that policy. I support a strict zero tolerance policy in the form of drugs! Those who have ruined the lives of others should be imprisoned for longer periods of time, I support having a new federal law mandating that all drug dealers must be sentenced to at least 55 years in prison. THAT IS HOW WE DO IT!!! We do not hug them out, like some of the Democrats, and some of the Republicans think we should do it. If someone committed a crime then we should bring the long arm of justice on them, HARD! ”


The crowd erupted into applause at the Governor William’s response. He gestured for them to stop, and the old governor continued.

“Keep in mind that I did all of that when you were playing patty cake with the Democrats, with no idea of how bad things are. He was also a horrible senator, in fact, I would like to add that university has taught him many things, but it definitely did not teach him to spell properly, on his website it states that he was born to “patents”, that must be where Kiser gets all his creativity from, as he was born from two inventions.”

The crowd laughed once, this time at Senator Kiser.

“Moving on, Senator Kiser what do you think about the Confederate flag, do states have the right to fly it on state grounds?”

[Titel der Stadt]

Denver, Colorado

Yesterday, ISIS brutally attacked the nation of Belgium. This attack comes 4 for months after the attacks in Paris. If we don't do something soon, the next attack could be on America. Something must be done.

If elected President, I will continue air strikes against ISIS, but carpet bombing civilized areas like my Republican colleagues want is ridiculous. How will America look if we kill thousands of innocent civilians, just because there was a high ranking terrorist in that area 24 hours earlier. The war on terror will never end, because however many terrorists will kill, there will always be someone to take over.

The only way to completely keep recruiters out of the country would be to shut down the internet in America, but we can't do that. All we can do is protect our boarders and fight terror and keep them confined before destroying ISIS. To help this happen, go to thomasgibbs2016.com and donate today. Thank you Denver and good night!