Washington (US Political RP;2016;IC)

[Southern Babylonia]

Goran "Unlikely to run", declines to endorse for now

At the outset of the 2016 presidential race, Senator Zara Goran (D-MI) was often mentioned as a potential contender for the Democratic nomination. At 54, the progressive firebrand from Detroit has been in congress for going on a decade, preceded by a long career in activism against Apartheid and the Gulf War. But as of yet, Senator Goran has declined to enter the race, disappointing a number of her allies in left-wing academic circles and racial justice movements. "At this point", Goran told the New York times in an interview on Saturday, "I don't feel like I'm in the right place to be running. Anyone hoping to be president really has to be willing to give 100% of their energy to the job, and that's not something that I feel I can offer at the moment. Still," she suggested, "if I see that there's really no one in a good position in the race who can advance the right vision for the country as well as taking on the Republicans in November... I haven't completely closed the door to it."

When asked if she may accept to be the running mate of the eventual nominee, Goran answered ambivalently. "I wouldn't be completely closed to it. My bet, though, is that the nominee will want to pick another candidate as their running mate to better unite the party. It's a pretty fierce primary this year, and I don't see a clear frontrunner." Whatever the result, Goran says, the general election candidate will have to be someone who can bring the party together and give the Democratic Party a sense of purpose and vitality going into November.

Senator Goran said she "expects to endorse" a candidate at some point during the primary, but did not give any names herself. When asked what she thought of the campaigns of Vermont governor Robby Danders and her fellow Michigan Senator Kenneth Turing, whose policies and rhetoric are often compared to her own, she said she felt that they both "brought up extremely important issues, issues that the Democratic Party has too often forgotten... If either one of them were to win the White House, I'd gladly fight by his side to build the sort of country that I think all three of us would like to see." When asked if either candidate could consider her comments to be an endorsement, Goran replied "No endorsements yet."

Like Governor Danders and Senator Turing, Senator Goran has been a long-time supporter of universal healthcare, free college tuition, and increased taxes on Wall Street.

"Ultimately," Goran said, "I think that whichever Democrat - hopefully - becomes president, they will have to realise that progressive ideals will always be sidelined if we allow the current campaign finance system to continue." She added that the next president should think of the overturning of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision as "the most important litmus test" for any potential Supreme Court nominee. Goran also referred to climate change as "the most important global threat of the 21st century", and stated that the next president "must be able to overcome the political clout of fossil fuel companies and do what is fundamentally necessary for the wellbeing of the nation."

On the matter of New York Chief Judge Michael Gansi being found guilty of corruption, Goran commented that she had "little to add to what has already been said: what the Judge did shows complete disregard for the proper administration of justice, and goes to show how badly transparency is needed in the judicial system."

Wherever Senator Goran's endorsement falls, it is expected to have a major effect on the outcome of the Michigan primary, as well as the primaries of neighbouring Illinois and Ohio, particularly among racial minorities and the traditional left-wing of the Democratic Party.

[Reunified Osea]

Kenneth flicks through his phone, coming across an article from the New York Times saying that Goran had declined to endorse anyone. He was halfway to Detroit airport. He tapped in Goran's phone number and waited patiently for his fellow Michiganian to pick up.

[Prolieum]

Virginia

The start-up Bell 2016 campaign has unveiled its official campaign logo. Gov. Bell said that those three words-Liberty, Responsibility, and Honor, would be the core of his campaign, a campaign about bringing America back to its glory days, while providing an even brighter future for the next generation.

[Prolieum]

[The Portland Territory]

Rhode Island: A state who rose from the ashes. A state under the guidance of a middle-class man grew to become one of America's great states.
Connecticut: A state who was in a depression and voted for a "moderate republican", but turned out to be an authoritarian leader. Her economy grew, but so did the leader's power.
Dont let the situation in Connecticut be the situation for America

And you can do that by voting for Governor Hark! Connecticut's Governor Devinevich has used his powers to do "good", but in reality, he went around his entire government and became supreme leader of Connecticut. We must not vote him as the Republican candidate. Democrats will tear him apart as a totalitarian dictator and beat him in a landslide.
The only way to beat the Left,is to vote for the Populist Right. And the best right-wing populist candidate that we have, is Governor Hark!
Hark has strengthened Rhode Island's economy and brought thousands of jobs back to the state. Under his policies, the price of college went down while the amount of students finding jobs went up. As a Conservative Libertarian, he has fought for civil rights his entire political career and will continue to do so.
So, do you want some authoritarian to give the Left the presidency, or fight back and give the power back to the people? Strengthen the Nation, and vote Tom Hark for President 2016!

Paid for by Hark2016

[American Honor]

Campaign Advertisement



Micheal Gansi is a traitor to this nation. His kind-embezzlers, swindlers politicians are destroying this nation.



We need a new face, not another career politician. Someone who has proven his worth to the nation on the field of battle.



Abelard Bell is the man for the job. Enough with corruption. Enough with irresponsibility. It is time for someone with conviction.

Paid for by American Honor PAC

[The Great White South]

John Gardner's second rally wasn't as grandiose as the first one, but just as significant. He was in the plains of Nebraska, a state on the road to Iowa, to talk of agriculture. He hoped his message would echo to the neighbouring state, and all agricultural states in general. The TV was here, and many inhabitants of the Cornhusker State, as many called it. A couple of wooden boxes for a stage and a microphone was all he had, but Gardner wanted to keep that as simple as possible for two reasons: Primo, he didn't want to throw too much money before Iowa and Secundo he wanted to sound as simple as possible. In the plain, a couple hundred of Nebraskans have come, and so did most national medias.

Gardner stood up on stage and announced, with his strong voice

Helloooooooo Nebraaaaaaaaaskaaaaaaaaaaa!

The crowd applauded and cheered after those words, and it took several minuted for them to calm down

If I have come today to the Cornhusker state, as they call it sometimes, it is to talk to you of a central subject too many candidates are forgetting: agriculture. You are the heart of our nation, farmers and workers of the land, but no one listens to you. All the decisions take place out there in Chicago, and your interests are ignored. And then you hear people speaking of taxing your business even more! Aren't you all already burdened by tax?

A concert of "Yeah"s and groans replied to the question

As I said, you are looked down on by all those in the cities. But I do not forget you. And if I am ever brought to the White House, I won't forget you either! I hear what you say, my friends. You need less tax, less regulations and more freedom to do your job as YOU want it, not as the guys in the offices want it. People forget you, because they have enough to eat. I am extremely grateful to you guys, because it is thanks to you that we have food in our plates. If I'm elected, I will make sure you have enough to live. Your salaries are a misery compared to the good you do to our nation. And meanwhile, these Danders guys are marching around, telling we should tax more some people. Haven't you already contributed by your sweat and your muscles?

I will not let people cover your farmland with concrete, I will not let anyone chop down these beautiful forests, contaminate this state's lakes and rivers, and I will not let anybody pierce this beautiful soil to look for petrol. The time for new energy has come! We have so many ways to create cheap efficient and clean energy! But those oil barons, they do not want to change. If they decide to destroy our beloved land for a few dollars, I won't let this happen!
We have strong rivers which can be dammed, we have strong winds which can be used, we have strong sunlight which can be turned into energy. Do we need petrol? I'd rather finance people who look for new solutions than finance petroleum. We would then be independent. Independent!

A roar of applause welcomed this long tirade. Gardner gets down and picks some corn seeds.

I will keep these seeds in my pocket, and every time I put my hand in my pocket, I'll remember how precious you are to our great nation, how your place in society is essential, how you are the seeds to our society, and how it is thanks to you that we are developed and that people get food!

[Law Enforcers]

Today at a rally in Iowa City, Sen. Hertz unveiled his campaign logo and slogan. He went on to explain why he designed it the way that he did. The logo and slogan has been added to his campaign website hertz2016.org. He had another large crowd in Iowa where he has spent a lot of his time so far in the campaign. He went on to talk about his fight for liberty, freedom, and small government. He also talked about his time in the Senate and his fights there. He got loud cheers when he talked about his battles with the establishment which is a huge part of his campaign.

[The Great White South]

Senator John Gardner @JohnGardner America is fed up with traitors like Micheal Gansi who are corrupt and do not do their job well whereas most Americans struggle to earn a living. #DownWithCorruption RETWEETSFAVORITE 128201009 8:55pm

[Reunified Osea]

[Law Enforcers]

[Not a Bang but a Whimper]

White House Daily Press Briefing
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room | The West Wing

---

MOIRA STAMPER:  Good afternoon, everybody.  It’s Monday already.  That’s something the President will be celebrating.  Let me do a quick announcement that you may have already seen a little bit about, and then we’ll go to your questions.

On Wednesday, May 25th, nine years after he announced his candidacy for President, President Fischer will return to the place where his career began by traveling to Tallahassee, Florida. As a State Senator, Dick Fischer spent each day in the Florida State Capitol working in good faith with folks from all walks of life — Democrats and Republicans and Independents — representing good people of every ethnicity and faith, determined to do right by the people of the state where he made his home. And as Governor of Florida, Dick Fischer chose the steps of the old state capitol to ask Americans to join him in the unfinished business of perfecting our union.

Now, in the final year of his second term, President Fischer looks forward to addressing the Florida Legislature on May 25th about what we can do together as a country to build a better politics, and one that reflects our better selves.  So that should be an interesting event this coming Wednesday this week.

With that, Josh, let’s go to your questions.

Q:    Thanks, Moira.  I wanted to ask you about Iranian state media reporting that they had flown a surveillance drone over some type of U.S. ship to conduct some surveillance.  Do you have any evidence that backs that up? And does the U.S. consider that to be a provocative act?

STAMPER:  Josh, I’ve seen these reports, as well.  I’d refer you to the Department of Defense for any assessment of whether or not any significant risk was perceived in that action.  They can give you a better sense of sort of how worrisome something like this is.

Q: And on another concerning issue of North Korea, I wanted to see if you could give us an update on the latest U.S. thinking about what the best approach is to responding to that testing incident.  It seems that some of our partners in other countries that we’re trying to get to put pressure on North Korea are concerned that if we push too hard with sanctions, it could actually destabilize North Korea and lead to even worse situations.  So is there, would the goal of additional U.S. sanctions be to put more economic pressure on Pyongyang, or to actually try and see a new type of government there?

STAMPER:  Josh, we’ve talked about how the nuclear test that the North Koreans conducted earlier this month was inconsistent with their international obligations.  And North Korea's pursuit of a larger nuclear weapons stockpile and a potentially more dangerous nuclear weapons stockpile only serves to destabilize the broader region.  And that’s why the broader region -- all the large countries in the broader region have called on them to stop doing it.

Ann.

Q: Just briefly, you’ve said before that the President has hoped to meet face to face with Speaker Ryan relatively soon.  And I know it’s just 10 days until the budget is released.  I’m wondering whether that meeting is going to happen soon, or do you have any news on that?

STAMPER:  I do.  It’s in the week ahead.  Next week -- we’ll just jump ahead.  Let me make sure I get this part right.  This Thursday, I believe, the President will meet with both the newly elected Senate Majority Leader and Speaker Ryan to discuss legislative priorities for the coming year.  Building on the bipartisan budget agreement that the President signed into law last year, we certainly believe that there are areas of cooperation for the year ahead.  And we are going to have a discussion, and the President will have a discussion with the Majority Leader and Speaker Ryan about opportunities to work together to deliver for the American people.

Q: Why has it taken so long to have the chance to meet with Speaker Ryan?

STAMPER:  Well, we’ve obviously been in a discussion with him since the beginning of the year about setting up this meeting.  And it’s obviously been a busy couple of weeks; obviously the State of the Union address, and there have been some snow days.  There have been at least a couple weeks where Congress hasn’t been in session.  But this is the opportunity that we’ve had to meet, and the President is looking forward to the conversation. Again, based on the success that we had last year in finding some common ground to advance a whole range of shared priorities, there’s plenty to talk about this year, too.

Justin.

Q:    Does the President agree with the Vice President that the Republican presidential race is a “gift from the Lord”?  (laughter)

STAMPER:  The Vice President has a well-established reputation for his colorful expressions like the one that you just cited there.  The President has made clear that regardless of who Republicans nominate at this point, based on the rhetoric that we hear not just from the leading candidate, but from all of the leading candidates — to the extent that there are multiples of them — all are offering up the same kind of pessimism and doom and gloom that stands in stark contrast to the kind of optimism and energy and momentum that Democrats are running on, and that dynamic historically in politics plays pretty well for those who are running on optimism and the kind of can-do spirit that has infused American politics since the founding of our country.

Q: But does he think that the Republicans — or the state of the Republican race — is at all making things easier for Democrats?

STAMPER:  Well, I think, again, I didn't see the entirety of the Vice President’s remarks.  But I think his point is that the contrast offered up from the pessimism of the Republican candidates, again, creates a genuine opportunity for Democratic candidates that are interested in championing the interest of middle-class families and capitalizing on the momentum that our economy is showing, and building on what is best about America.  And the Vice President’s observation is that that's a winning message, particularly when it comes in contrast with the doom and gloom that's being spread by the Republican Party.

Michelle.

Q: Thanks, Moira.  I wanted to get your take on the Iowa caucus coming up next week.  Last opportunity to ask you about this before I head out to the Hawkeye state. You have some experience here helping the President, then Governor Fischer, win the Iowa caucus back in 2008.  I wanted to get your sense about how important it is for Democrats to win Iowa. Does it give you that momentum?  If the President, then Governor Fischer, had not won Iowa, would it have, in your opinion, hurt him in the process to winning the Democratic nomination?  Give me your take as someone who’s experienced this before.

STAMPER:  Well, look, each race is different, and the dynamics of the race and the calendar are different every year.  And I think in some ways that’s what makes the primary process and even the Iowa caucus process so interesting. Ido think that it’s true, in 2008, if Dick Fischer had not won the Iowa caucuses, that he probably would not have won the nomination and therefore would not have become President.  At the time, in 2008, there was a lot of skepticism about a couple of different things. But look, I think what’s notable is it’s the first contest of the presidential cycle.  And I think that’s the other reason that it’s so interesting.  It’s the first time that all of our own personal assumptions and hypotheses about the candidates and their strategy can be put to the test.  And that’s what will make Tuesday night a pretty interesting night of television.

Last question, Janine.

Q: Does the President have any comment on the corruption scandal unraveling in New York at the moment?

STAMPER: That's really a state issue, is what our first thought is. The President doesn't want to make a statement until he's spoken with his advisors and his friends. He's hoping to meet with Senator Breckenridge this afternoon, since they have a working relationship. But when the President does make a statement, it will be from his desk.

Q: What will the President be discussing with Senator Breckenridge? And why a Senator from Massachusetts? Is the President planning an endorsement already for the Democratic nomination?

STAMPER: As discussed just last Friday, the President will not be endorsing any candidates for the presidency, and that is a promise he intends to stick with. He will exercise his duty as a delegate at the Democratic convention come July, and even then he will only be voting in accordance with the popular vote. That's all we have time for today.

Let me do the week ahead, and then we’ll let you guys get on with your work.
Today and tomorrow, the President will attend meetings at the White House.
On Wednesday, the President will deliver remarks to the Florida Legislature. This is something that the President has specifically requested the opportunity to do himself, so I know he’s looking forward to this event.
On Thursday, as I mentioned, the President will meet with the elected Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the House Ryan.  They’ll discuss a range of legislative priorities for the upcoming year.  And the President is certainly hopeful that they’ll be able to build on the momentum of the bipartisan budget agreement that was reached at the end of last year and discuss areas of cooperation for the year ahead.
And on Friday, the President will be here at the White House.

So, lots to look forward to this week.  But until then, have a great day.

---

[The Portland Territory]

*Hark is behind the stage, preparing for the debate*
You think you are ready, sir?
Yes, I think I am. Time to roll.

[Comcaliph]

*Christian would stand up to his podium and prepare to make his opening statement, surrounded by his PR and security*

To avoid metagaming, i hope we both agree to avoid overcontrol the watching audience and media response as that should be down to the speakers/hosts in the form of polls, speakers I would love a basic analysis of how it went

this isn't an official debate by the speakers, just something small to boost our attention

"Firstly, I would like to say thank you to the owners of the hall for allowing us to use it for this, a thank you to the media and public for turning out today, and a thank you to you, Governor Hark, for agreeing to do this. I hope we can both take something away.

Moving on to the topic at hand

Firstly, I do have to applaud your attempt to introduce a Personal Allowance system into the USA taxation system. But not because it is a good policy, but because it, coupled with the rest of your policy, shows how misinformed, unprepared and unfit you are to be in charge of the economy. Our nation already has Standard Deduction, Itemised Deducation, Tax Credits and Personal Exemption, all of which nullify your first threshold and by extension a large portion of your second.

Your modified tax system also only highlights one section of taxation, which I can only assume is a single taxable income, however in America, for many years now, we have operated under a system where you pay a different amount of tax based on whether you are single, a head of the family, or married/qualified widower. For example, if you are paying as a single taxable income, then from $0-$9,275, you pay 10% -excluding deduction, credits and exemption- tax. However if you are paying tax as a married couple/qualified widower, then the 10% threshold covers $0-$18,550, to accomodate potential higher living costs, pay gap and other external circumstances associated with the section.

Thirdly, I would like to point out a lie in your policy list, you claim that over recent years income taxation has increased, however this is not true. In 2014, the 10% threshold was $0-$9,075, in 2016, the same threshold was $0-$9,275. This means that -if only by a small amount- less money was being taxed in a higher threshold, apply these marginal gains to all levels and you are paying less in tax.

Fourthly, I would like to point outa flaw in your plan. You claimed that due to the circumstance, you could not lower tax, however you also said you would not increase it, yet at a general glance over your policy, taxation has been lowered at all levels, it has been made more complicated, with even less support highlighted in your plan, which leads me on to my next point..

Your plan is vague, will you be operating under a marginal or slab system, will you be addressing other taxes, for example FICA or Capital Gains. To clarify, a marginal system is our current system, based on the idea that only income earnt after the previous threshold is subtracted from the starting income, is taxed in the higher thresholds, and a slab system is the idea that as soon as you cross into another threshold, you pay that thresholds rate on your entire income. Your policies only addresses Corporation Tax and Income Tax, and neither have detailed, researched and benifical plans laid out.

Moving on to Corporation Tax...

Firstly, similar to income tax, your plan is vague, you have not highlighted any change in rates, you have not highlighted laws concerning federal and state rates, you have simply stated that the companies are taxed too much, which is ludicrous in itself, and that you will reduce it.

Secondly, you claim that tax rates are too high, which would be ludicrous as our top rate is 39%, little compared to the top rate in Saudi Arabia at 55%, Chad at 40%, and Puerto Rico also on 39%. These nations have all seen significant economic growth recently, with Saudi Arabia experiencing a GDP growth rate of 5.5%. Chad with a growth rate of 7.2%. However Puerto Rico and the USA score considerbly lower, at 3.82% growth since 1961, and the USA with an annualised rate of 1.4% in 2015.

I can not make additional points on this tax or any other due to their lack of existence in your policy, so I pass the floor to you."

OOC - Portland, to you

[The Portland Territory]

*Hark walks up to the podium and adjusts the microphone*
America is in deep trouble: We are $20 Trillion dollars in debt, and establishment politicians are turning to taxes to fix that. Freinds, increasing taxes will not solve our debt problem. Becoming fiscally responsible and pro-growth will be, though. By increasing taxes, it puts a lot more strain and pressure on the American people, to the point of them not even being able to pay them! My tax plan was designed so that when the debt level is going down, the new tax system will be implemented so that the American people can save more. Sadly, we cannot implement it immediately given the fact that if we do, it will put us into even more debt. With the exception of corporate tax which we must decrease immediately. Businesses cannot grow unless they are not under the burden of the government. As for the rich, they should be taxed higher than the average class, but not too high. Why? Because no matter your stance, the upper class and "1%" are the men and women who run this economy. They are the ones who invest millions of dollars to be successful. And if they dont invest enough money, then our economy will be in decline and eventually fall off the top global economy. But if we solve our debt problem and it gradually decreases, then, and only then, can we lower personal taxes. And if I am elected president, by God will our debt be solved. Thank you!

[The Portland Territory]

*Hark gestures towards Christian*
Ah, thank you for the kind remarks. I am ready to rebuttal when I am allowed to.

[Comcaliph]

OOC - AGENDA
Here are our proposals for the debate concerning your taxation policies, as always the floor remains open to suggestion but we think this is fair, and gives both sides of the argument enough time to prepare for it properly.

We hope to be able to start in, perhaps, an hour?

We would propose it runs like the following;
- Opening speech by my candidate
- Opening speech by your candidate

- Short debate session where we get down to the nitty gritty and actually interact

- We prepare 4 questions for eachother, pose as the Media and ask them

*would rise*

"I have to say, of all things I expected, it was not that, you continued the lie I falsified in my opening statement and contributed to class division, and promoted the idea that at the expense of others, we should be giving money to those who have more to give to our nation."

OOC _ rebuttal away

[The Portland Territory]

OOC - AGENDA
Here are our proposals for the debate concerning your taxation policies, as always the floor remains open to suggestion but we think this is fair, and gives both sides of the argument enough time to prepare for it properly.

We hope to be able to start in, perhaps, an hour?

We would propose it runs like the following;
- Opening speech by my candidate
- Opening speech by your candidate

- Short debate session where we get down to the nitty gritty and actually interact

- We prepare 4 questions for eachother, pose as the Media and ask them

*would rise*

"I have to say, of all things I expected, it was not that, you continued the lie I falsified in my opening statement and contributed to class division, and promoted the idea that at the expense of others, we should be giving money to those who have more to give to our nation."

OOC _ rebuttal away

You see, my tax plans were designed to save everyone money, including the higher class. The middle class is being taxed too much to save, and the higher class is being taxed too high to invest. Those two factors are what drive economies. And you stated in your opening statement about how Saudi Arabia and Chad have much higher limits for taxes than the US does. Tell me this: Do they both have extensive healthcare systems? Do they both spend half of their budget to the military? No. Saudi Arabia's economy is based off of their expansive oil industry. When oil prices drop, so do the Saudi's economy. As for Chad, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from numerous countries, including ourself. If we can severely cut government spending, then our GDP Growth will be much higher than 1%, trust me.

[Comcaliph]

OOC - AGENDA
Here are our proposals for the debate concerning your taxation policies, as always the floor remains open to suggestion but we think this is fair, and gives both sides of the argument enough time to prepare for it properly.

We hope to be able to start in, perhaps, an hour?

We would propose it runs like the following;
- Opening speech by my candidate
- Opening speech by your candidate

- Short debate session where we get down to the nitty gritty and actually interact

- We prepare 4 questions for eachother, pose as the Media and ask them

*would rise*

"I have to say, of all things I expected, it was not that, you continued the lie I falsified in my opening statement and contributed to class division, and promoted the idea that at the expense of others, we should be giving money to those who have more to give to our nation."

OOC _ rebuttal away

You see, my tax plans were designed to save everyone money, including the higher class. The middle class is being taxed too much to save, and the higher class is being taxed too high to invest. Those two factors are what drive economies. And you stated in your opening statement about how Saudi Arabia and Chad have much higher limits for taxes than the US does. Tell me this: Do they both have extensive healthcare systems? Do they both spend half of their budget to the military? No. Saudi Arabia's economy is based off of their expansive oil industry. When oil prices drop, so do the Saudi's economy. As for Chad, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from numerous countries, including ourself. If we can severely cut government spending, then our GDP Growth will be much higher than 1%, trust me.

You said, and I quote "our president has increased taxes to stop it. This has not worked" and "Sadly, we cannot lower personal taxes until our debt is in major decline", which suggests no movement in tax rates at all, now you are claiming you are redesigning taxes to save money, which suggests a shift in rates.

Secondly, our healthcare system is embarrassing, a simple stitching job can cost up to $1,500, in Saudi Arabia, it is entirely subsidised by the Government as it operates under a national healthcare system. And foreign aid to Chad contributes to less than 1% of our expenditure, and less than 40% of Chad's overall revenue.

Cutting government spending has never had a positive effect, investment is what in the long run produces income, as is similar in the stock market, but I am sure you know that.

I hope you take time to respond to other parts of my opening statement.

[The Portland Territory]

You see, my tax plans were designed to save everyone money, including the higher class. The middle class is being taxed too much to save, and the higher class is being taxed too high to invest. Those two factors are what drive economies. And you stated in your opening statement about how Saudi Arabia and Chad have much higher limits for taxes than the US does. Tell me this: Do they both have extensive healthcare systems? Do they both spend half of their budget to the military? No. Saudi Arabia's economy is based off of their expansive oil industry. When oil prices drop, so do the Saudi's economy. As for Chad, they also receive a lot of foreign aid from numerous countries, including ourself. If we can severely cut government spending, then our GDP Growth will be much higher than 1%, trust me.

You said, and I quote "our president has increased taxes to stop it. This has not worked" and "Sadly, we cannot lower personal taxes until our debt is in major decline", which suggests no movement in tax rates at all, now you are claiming you are redesigning taxes to save money, which suggests a shift in rates.

Secondly, our healthcare system is embarrassing, a simple stitching job can cost up to $1,500, in Saudi Arabia, it is entirely subsidised by the Government as it operates under a national healthcare system. And foreign aid to Chad contributes to less than 1% of our expenditure, and less than 40% of Chad's overall revenue.

Cutting government spending has never had a positive effect, investment is what in the long run produces income, as is similar in the stock market, but I am sure you know that.

I hope you take time to respond to other parts of my opening statement.

As for your first point, yes that is true. Sadly, because of the politicians in Washington, our country is drowning in debt. And sadly, the American people have to pay for it. I will not lower personal taxes until our debt is in major decline. And how will I do that? Cut government spending. But you said, and I quote, "Cutting government spending has never had a positive effect". Tell me this: Are you aware that 54% of government spending goes to the military and the Pentagon. I want to strengthen our military, but this is way too much. I will cut military spending in half and I will do the same for government politicians pay, foreign aid, agriculture, the environment, housing, transportation. That alone would save $83.38 Billion Dollars. And that is not counting cutting many corporate subsidies including Planned Parenthood and many useless bureaus. Next, I do agree with your idea with the healthcare situation, it is horrendous. We need to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a much more effective Medicaid system.
Back to your opening statement, you stated that "Our nation already has Standard Deduction, Itemised Deductions, Tax Credits and Personal Exemption, all of which nullify your first threshold and by extension a large portion of your second" I would like to say that, though it is not included in my website but I will be adding to it later, that you either file it single or married, there will be no head of household slot anymore. I will also be adding a list of dependencies that will also help lower your income tax.
As for me "Lying" about the raising of taxes, I am not. When I was younger, I saw the implementation of many new taxes and defence of unlawful ones, such as the estate tax. I still hear similar stories amongst Rhode Islanders to this day.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

After yet another day at work, Senator Marlin was understandably quite stressed. While the paperwork and meetings had been light that day, he had kept the television on in his office, and what he saw was to him ideologically distressing. He knew that, should any of the Republican candidates win, the long run was going to be chock-full of negotiations and far-right laws, a thought which made him, as a long time Socialist, cringe internally. Hopefully, though, the house would align against the Republicans in the years following. He might even be able to be the Whip then.

As the Senator hopped aboard a public bus, he pulled out his phone and, after a couple of swipes, found the number of friend and Representative Bernard Riain. He tapped the number and waited for him to pick up.

[Comcaliph]

You said, and I quote "our president has increased taxes to stop it. This has not worked" and "Sadly, we cannot lower personal taxes until our debt is in major decline", which suggests no movement in tax rates at all, now you are claiming you are redesigning taxes to save money, which suggests a shift in rates.

Secondly, our healthcare system is embarrassing, a simple stitching job can cost up to $1,500, in Saudi Arabia, it is entirely subsidised by the Government as it operates under a national healthcare system. And foreign aid to Chad contributes to less than 1% of our expenditure, and less than 40% of Chad's overall revenue.

Cutting government spending has never had a positive effect, investment is what in the long run produces income, as is similar in the stock market, but I am sure you know that.

I hope you take time to respond to other parts of my opening statement.

As for your first point, yes that is true. Sadly, because of the politicians in Washington, our country is drowning in debt. And sadly, the American people have to pay for it. I will not lower personal taxes until our debt is in major decline. And how will I do that? Cut government spending. But you said, and I quote, "Cutting government spending has never had a positive effect". Tell me this: Are you aware that 54% of government spending goes to the military and the Pentagon. I want to strengthen our military, but this is way too much. I will cut military spending in half and I will do the same for government politicians pay, foreign aid, agriculture, the environment, housing, transportation. That alone would save $83.38 Billion Dollars. And that is not counting cutting many corporate subsidies including Planned Parenthood and many useless bureaus. Next, I do agree with your idea with the healthcare situation, it is horrendous. We need to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and replace it with a much more effective Medicaid system.
Back to your opening statement, you stated that "Our nation already has Standard Deduction, Itemised Deductions, Tax Credits and Personal Exemption, all of which nullify your first threshold and by extension a large portion of your second" I would like to say that, though it is not included in my website but I will be adding to it later, that you either file it single or married, there will be no head of household slot anymore. I will also be adding a list of dependencies that will also help lower your income tax.
As for me "Lying" about the raising of taxes, I am not. When I was younger, I saw the implementation of many new taxes and defence of unlawful ones, such as the estate tax.

Yes, our country is drowning in debt, but that doesn't rebuttal anything, merely repeat what you have already said time and time again. Cutting government spending where? Your plan is vague on this, and how did a debate on your flawed taxation system drift into government spending?

I am highly aware that the actual figure is little over 13%, and by cutting it in half you take away over 200billion from the defence budget. Doing the same to the other departments and cutting "useless" bureaus also lowers unemployment rate, housing construction and regulation provides jobs, our transport system provides jobs, maintaining the environment has been proven to be beneficial. I question how much calculation has gone into your work.

You have flipped again, firstly proud of our system boasting it to be better than another nations, but upon fact checking you have forced to become critical, do you concede the best healthcare system is a universal healthcare system?

There is a difference between raising taxes, and implementing new taxes.

[Novus Maryland]

After yet another day at work, Senator Marlin was understandably quite stressed. While the paperwork and meetings had been light that day, he had kept the television on in his office, and what he saw was to him ideologically distressing. He knew that, should any of the Republican candidates win, the long run was going to be chock-full of negotiations and far-right laws, a thought which made him, as a long time Socialist, cringe internally. Hopefully, though, the house would align against the Republicans in the years following. He might even be able to be the Whip then.

As the Senator hopped aboard a public bus, he pulled out his phone and, after a couple of swipes, found the number of friend and Representative Bernard Riain. He tapped the number and waited for him to pick up.

"Ahh, hello, Marlin? What are you callin' about today?" says Bernard.

[The Northern Chinese Provinces]

After yet another day at work, Senator Marlin was understandably quite stressed. While the paperwork and meetings had been light that day, he had kept the television on in his office, and what he saw was to him ideologically distressing. He knew that, should any of the Republican candidates win, the long run was going to be chock-full of negotiations and far-right laws, a thought which made him, as a long time Socialist, cringe internally. Hopefully, though, the house would align against the Republicans in the years following. He might even be able to be the Whip then.

As the Senator hopped aboard a public bus, he pulled out his phone and, after a couple of swipes, found the number of friend and Representative Bernard Riain. He tapped the number and waited for him to pick up.

"Ahh, hello, Marlin? What are you callin' about today?" says Bernard.

"You think we could meet somewhere tonight? I've got some things I'd like to discuss." The tone of the background noise warbled a bit as the bus went over a bump.

[Sanabel]

Press Release

To the American people:
My opponent, a man whom I greatly respect, the great Governor Hark of Rhode Island, has begun to publicly question the legality of one of my most major actions as the executive of Connecticut.

As many of you know, I used my power as Governor to utilize the Connecticut National Guard, to fight violent crime in major Connecticut cities. I deployed 2,000 soldiers in total to crack down on gang activity specifically over the course of three months. Activities occurred in Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, New London, and a few other cities.

This operation, deemed disaster relief, was a success. There were only a few million dollars worth of civilian and town property damage, which was repaid in full. There were very few civilian casualties, though the ones that occurred were of course unfortunate.

Many said this was a breach of power, or was unnecessary force. But every day I think of the thousands of children living in Connecticut's cities who were killed by gang violence, or the thousands of families torn apart by organized crime, I realize, and the people of this great state realize, it was a necessary action. I could not sit back and watch shooting in the streets, and the slaughter of my good people.

I did not sit back, and watch my cities get torn apart. Nor did I take the impotent methods of the establishment. Feeding corruption of law enforcement did not work, neither did useless gun bans. I did what was necessary to protect my people, which is more than can be said about many politicians.

It is also important to look at the effects of this operation. Violent crime is at an all time low, as is gang activity. The Crips and Latin Kings, the former rulers of my cities are gone. Our cities are safe, and gentrification is underway. Due to the rapid dismantling of the gangs through military operation over a short period of time, Connecticut's urban areas have been completely turned around. Not only this, but starting at the top I worked first hand to restructure police departments across the state, and local governments, ending the corruption that fed this rampant crime.

I made a hard decision, and it was totally worth it. But for this, I am called names on social media, by politicians without character. By politicians who never had to make the hard decisions I did.

And of course, I can see their concerns. It does seem like a breech of law, and an overextension of power.

However, that us bit the case. According to state law:

The governor commands the Guard through the adjutant general. He may employ it or parts of it to respond to local or state emergencies. He must mobilize it for out-of-state duty in "time of war, invasion, rebellion, riot or disaster, or reasonable apprehension thereof, or upon requisition by the president of the United States" (CGS §. 27-16). He may mobilize it for in-state duty "in case of riot or civil commotion” (CGS § 27-17).

Not only did I consider the gang warzone that Connecticut's cities had become to be a "disaster," and a "civil commotion," but so did the Connecticut Supreme Court. The court deemed it to be a man-made disaster, and the death of hundreds per year because of gang violence was deemed to be a civil commotion(light terms, in my opinion!)

As you can see, America, my actions were well within the law. Not only that, but I took action against crime when no one else was willing or able, all part of my reforming of Connecticut's many ailments.

Just as I took immediate and effective action In Connecticut, I will do so in the United States, if I am elected your president this fall. I brought the change Connecticut needed, I will do so across this great nation. It's Time to Rebuild, America!

PAID FOR BY THE DENISEVICH 2016 CAMPAIGN