SWMissourian

March 2

placeholder

March 1

I may regret this…but what the hell lol

March 1

image.jpeg.827879b9a1f55880a5017b8b59b5d867.jpeg

Name: Andrew Clarke
Seat: Missouri Class 1
Party: Democratic
Avatar: Andrew Bailey (Missouri AG)
Major Caucus: Blue Dog Coalition

Gender: Male

Race: White

Religion: Roman Catholic

Date of Birth: January 2, 1964 (52)

Place of Birth: St. Louis, Missouri

Place of Residence: Oakville, Missouri

Family: Straight, married w/ 4 kids

—Father: Sean Clarke (b. 1942)

—Mother: Marilyn Clarke (b. 1944)

—Brother: John Clarke (b. 1966)

—Sister: Violet Smith (b. 1968)

—Sister: Nancy Osborne (b. 1972)

—Wife: Zoe Clarke (b. 1968, m. 1991)

—Son: Zachary Clarke (b. 1994)

—Son: Lance Clarke (b. 1997)

—Daughter: Clara Clarke (b. 2000)

—Son: Reagan Clarke (b. 2004)

Educational History:

—University of Missouri-Columbia, B.S. Political Science (1982-1986)

—Washington University in St. Louis, Juris Doctor (1986-1989)

Career History:

—Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County, MO (1989-1992)

—Corporate Attorney, Armstrong Teasdale (1992-2001)

Political Experience:

—Missouri House of Representatives, HD 91/Webster Groves (1997-2001)

—Prosecuting Attorney, St. Louis County (2001-2009)

—Attorney-General of Missouri (2009-2013)

—US Senator (2013-present)

Key Votes:

113th Congress -

—VAWA Reauthorization: YEA

—Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013: YEA

—Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013: YEA (extra)

—Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2013: NAY (extra)

—Judicial Nomination Filibuster Nuclear Option: NAY (extra)

114th Congress -

—Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act: YEA

—Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act: YEA (extra)

—Congressional Disapproval of Waters of the US Rule: YEA (extra)

Points:

—Lawyer: 10 points

—College Degree at Private University: 5 points

—College Degree at Public University: 0 points

—State Legislature, Lower House Term x2: 2 points

—Attorney General: 5 points

—Elected County Prosecutor (2 terms): 10 points (?)

—Male: 0 points

—Roman Catholic: 0 points

—White: 0 points

—Straight, married with > 3 kids: 0 points

—50-65 years old: 0 points

—Middle Class Upbringing: 0 points

—Upper Class: -5 points

—Extra Key Votes x5: 25 points

Total: 52 points

Bio coming soon

February 29

On 2/25/2024 at 4:50 PM, Malcolm Tucker said:

Hey guys,

I've got an idea from other simulations I've been in. We could open a topic for every round, where people can post Tweets created by this website: https://www.tweetgen.com/create/tweet.html

They look real, it's super easy and free and would be quite a nice feature for the sim if players can tweet.

Idk if we can actually call it Twitter (rights and stuff ), but alternatively we could say Tweeter, Tweeper, whatever...

Here's an example of a tweet:

That isn't a bad idea. Most of our tweeting is done on the Discord server, but you can still use that. I like how it looks.

February 28

1 minute ago, Matthew Richard said:

What did I get wrong? I can’t tell?

This one, maybe?
Lawyer: 10 points (To start your own firm, add 5 points)

February 26

Think ya got beat

February 26

54 minutes ago, jakeakins said:

I did know this, does this not allow me to unseat them?

Nope.

February 25

No. The power of that avatar is too strong.

February 20

1 hour ago, Tuna said:

Name: Howard Baxter McCandless

Apparently he can't decide how Irish he is

January 3

Senate Democrat Approval Ratings

Senate Minority Leader John Starnes (D-VA)

Approve: 47.1%

Disapprove: 44.3%

Unsure/Neutral: 8.6%

Senate Minority Whip Janice Kamaka (D-HI)

Approve: 53.3%

Disapprove: 34.5%

Unsure/Neutral: 12.2%

DNC Chair & Senator Jon Krol (D-NY)

Approve: 47.8%

Disapprove: 32.3%

Unsure/Neutral: 19.9%

Senator Tim Adeyemi (D-PA)

Approve: 40%

Disapprove: 40%

Unsure/Neutral: 20%

Senator Alexander Castillo (D-CO)

Approve: 43.8%

Disapprove: 35%

Unsure/Neutral: 21.2%

Senator Michael A. Cook (D-CT)

Approve: 48.5%

Disapprove: 35%

Unsure/Neutral: 16.5%

Senator Camilo deSonido (I/D-CO)

Approve: 39.7%

Disapprove: 42.2%

Unsure/Neutral: 17.1%

Senator Erik Kaberle (D-PA)

Approve: 41.4%

Disapprove: 39.4%

Unsure/Neutral: 19.2%

Senator William Lewis (D-NY)

Approve: 52.6%

Disapprove: 37.1%

Unsure/Neutral: 10.3%

Edward O’Connor II (D-MA)

Approve: 47.6%

Disapprove: 33.6%

Unsure/Neutral: 18.8%

Senator Aaron Sharpe (D-CA)

Approve: 44.7%

Disapprove: 38%

Unsure/Neutral: 17.3%

Senator Nolan Stokes (D-MD)

Approve: 44%

Disapprove: 33%

Unsure/Neutral: 23%

Senator Don Vinachelli (D-NJ)

Approve: 50.6%

Disapprove: 39.8%

Unsure/Neutral: 9.6%

Senator Madeline White (D-MI)

Approve: 44.4%

Disapprove: 39.8%

Unsure/Neutral: 15.8%

Senator Naomi Wolfe (D-GA)

Approve: 40%

Disapprove: 40%

Unsure/Neutral: 20%

January 3

Senate Republican Approval Ratings

Senate Majority Leader Butch Elroy (R-WV)

Approve: 44.1%

Disapprove: 40%

Unsure/Neutral: 15.9%

Senate Majority Whip Owen Ackerman (R-ME)

Approve: 40%

Disapprove: 40%

Unsure/Neutral: 20%

RNC Chair & Senator Alex Valdez (R-FL)

Approve: 50%

Disapprove: 39%

Unsure/Neutral: 11%

Senator Mark Block (R-TX)

Approve: 43.9%

Disapprove: 39.6%

Unsure/Neutral: 16.5%

Senator Douglas Butcher (R-MO)

Approve: 52.2%

Disapprove: 39.1%

Unsure/Neutral: 8.7%

Senator John Domenico (R-LA)

Approve: 47%

Disapprove: 35%

Unsure/Neutral: 18%

Senator Brandon Ewing (R-TX)

Approve: 45.8%

Disapprove: 40.5%

Unsure/Neutral: 13.7%

Senator Michael Goreski (R-MO)

Approve: 46.4%

Disapprove: 43%

Unsure/Neutral: 10.6%

Senator Daniel Hunt (R-AL)

Approve: 44.9%

Disapprove: 37.7%

Unsure/Neutral: 17.4%

Senator Dylan Macmillan (R-UT)

Approve: 44.5%

Disapprove: 36%

Unsure/Neutral: 19.5%

Senator Dennis Millhouse (R-IN)

Approve: 51.5%

Disapprove: 37.6%

Unsure/Neutral: 10.8%

Senator Sarah Milliken (R-NE)

Approve: 47.1%

Disapprove: 40.1%

Unsure/Neutral: 12.8%

Senator Luke Rodgers (R-AR)

Approve: 45%

Disapprove: 33%

Unsure/Neutral: 22%

Senator Rosalind Spencer (R-TN)

Approve: 46.8%

Disapprove: 38%

Unsure/Neutral: 15.2%

Senator Jennifer Stohl (R-MT)

Approve: 50.1%

Disapprove: 40.3%

Unsure/Neutral: 19.6%

December 27, 2023

Q1, 2025: Public Opinion on Immigration, Anti-Semitism, and Generic Congressional Ballot

Question: Are you for or against the passage of the Republican immigration and foreign policy bill (S.66)?
For: 47.5%

Against: 44.2%

Unsure/Neutral: 8.3%

Republicans began the immigration saga with a large push in the press in favor of their bill, S.66. This helped them, along with the increased visibility and importance of immigration and border security in the public’s mind during the Biden Administration. However, the inclusion of controversial Ukraine provisions caused discontent among some conservatives, and some activists criticized the bill being so large and multi-faceted, preferring Ukraine/Israel aid to be addressed separately. Democrats also stepped up their press campaign against the bill, with Republican efforts fading off. Janice Kamaka also forced Republicans to reject the popular DACA provisions Democrats favor. While the public remains in favor of the bill by a small plurality, Democrats seem to have blunted any GOP momentum from this issue for now.

Question: Which party do you trust more to address anti-semitism on American?
Republicans: 36.1%

Democrats: 40.9%

Unsure/Neither: 23.0%

What began as a seemingly easy win for the GOP ended in a rout, with the Democrats successfully amending the bill into a state unacceptable to conservatives. This caused the Senate GOP to pull the bill, and Democrats slammed them in the press. With the issue dropped by the GOP (at least for now), public opinion on the issue quickly collapsed for them.

Question: If elections for Congress were held today, would you vote for the Democratic candidate or the Republican candidate?
Republican: 42.4%

Democratic: 45.3%

Unsure/Neither: 11.9%

Republicans began the year with a bit of a honeymoon phase, but with defeats in Congress, a controversial Cabinet, and strong Democratic press efforts, public opinion now favors Democrats on the generic ballot by an increasing margin. Momentum is on the Democrats’ side, but the GOP has time to turn their fortunes around. Polls this far from elections should not be taken as gospel truth.

December 27, 2023

Immigration Debate Rages on Capitol Hill, Deal Seems Unlikely

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The halls of Capitol Hill are abuzz with activity, debate, and passion as the focus shifts from the failed antisemitism bill to the latest Republican initiative, S.66 Securing America’s Borders, Communities, and Allies Act, a sprawling piece of legislation aimed at a broad array of issues from border security and immigration to foreign aid directed at American allies.

S.66 was unveiled by Senate Majority Leader Butch Elroy (R-WV) as a major GOP initiative aimed at addressing several of the GOP’s top issues they campaigned on last year. The primary focus is on border security and immigration reform. In a press conference, Senator Elroy said Republicans want to “secure our border through every means available in a thoughtful, prudent manner. We don't give a hoot how it's done. Whether its a wall, fence, boots, or drones, every damn inch of the border and our ports of entry will be secured.”

The bill includes a broad array of border enforcement measures and immigration reforms. It hires more immigration judges and ICE attorneys, establishes regional processing centers, increases funding for border security infrastructure including vehicles and technology, requires the installation of surveillance technology along the border, and requires the implementation of e-verify nationwide, among other things. Conspicuously absent was an explicit requirement to build a wall across the entire southern border, a key campaign promise of Republicans since the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Elroy told reporters the bill would also reduce the deficit, citing a report from Congress that claimed the border crisis cost taxpayers $451 billion a year, but it is not immediately clear if this is actually true.

The bill also includes provisions tackling crime in American communities. This includes language strengthening application of the death penalty to cop killers, adding assault of a police officer to the list of deportable offenses, allowing federal COPS grants to be used for compensation and hiring of police, placing fentanyl-related substances into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, among other policies. These appear to be largely related to the push on immigration policy, so their inclusion in the bill did not surprise many Capitol Hill observers. But not all inclusions in the bill came with no surprises.

S.66 also includes language establishing a new independent federal agency to oversee aid for both Ukraine and Israel. S.66 appropriates $30 billion to this agency in 2025 and 2026, but the agency could also make emergency requests of up to $10 billion per quarter. This surprised many, as Republicans and even many independents have increasingly soured on support for Ukraine in its defensive war against Russia. Many Republican politicians and voters have objected to further spending in Ukraine, citing a failure to spend money protecting American borders and communities as a chief cause for opposing Ukraine funding. Many have also expressed concern over potential Ukrainian corruption or escalation of the war, especially among the more isolationist elements of the party. Republicans tend to remain strongly in favor of aid to Israel, however. With this decline in support, most analysts and pundits expected the GOP to drop Ukraine as a priority.

The seeming reversal of the Senate GOP on funding for Ukraine drew immediate attention from Democrats, who were quick to highlight the switch on social media and in the press. Senator John Starnes (D-VA) pointed out the apparent flip-flop to Jake Tapper on CNN, and Sen. Janice Kamaka (D-HI) also appeared on CNN, telling Anderson Cooper, “Republicans like Butch Elroy want you to think they deserve brownie points for finally seeing the plight of the Ukrainian people, despite a constant stream of warnings since the beginning of the conflict about the stakes Ukraine faces. Democrats have been the only party consistent in our belief that the Ukrainian People deserve our support and have acted accordingly.”

Democratic opposition wasn’t just about the Republican hypocrisy on Ukraine. Democratic Senators also objected to the immigration provisions, the main focus of the bill. Starnes told Tapper that “this bill continues the demonization of people not born here in the United States and continues the narrative they only come here for drugs, guns or terrorism.” On NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Jon Krol (D-NY) complained about the path the bill took to the Senate Floor. “The process on S.66 has been all wrong. Our Republican counterparts should have called us before bringing this bill to the floor. It means something entirely different to have a meeting over doughnuts with a white board and scratch paper rather than hash out amendments to drafted legislation on the Senate Floor.”

Despite the strong opposition from Senate Democrats, Republicans have remained largely supportive of the bill. Senator Alex Valdez (R-FL) told Jake Tapper, “It's not just about enhancing border security; it's about creating a comprehensive solution that respects human dignity, strengthens our communities, and upholds our international commitments. Our approach combines firmness on security with compassion in immigration.” Senator Michael Goreski (R-MO) also came out in vocal support of the bill. In an appearance on Fox News, Goreski stated, “We will make sure that illegal migrants can't exploit the slowness of America's judicial system to stay in this country for years and years - we will speed up the deportation process, focusing on violent and dangerous illegals.”

One prominent sticking point brought up by progressive opposition is the lack of language in the bill that addresses so-called “dreamers”, or people who were brought to this country illegally when they were very young. President Barack Obama unilaterally enacted a program called DACA to prevent them from being deported, something criticized heavily by conservatives. President Trump attempted to repeal the program but ran into legal difficulties. The state of dreamers has been in legal and political limbo, with progressives and immigrants’ rights groups long advocating for protected immigration status for such people. An amnesty program for dreamers generally polls quite well among voters, but with strong Republican opposition, it has failed to pass Congress. Senator Kamaka moved to amend the bill to include language for dreamers, winning great applause from groups like the ACLU and liberal activists. The amendment failed, however, on a party line vote with all Democrats voting in favor and all Republicans voting against. Senator Don Vinachelli (D-NJ) was quick to blast GOP Senators for the defeat in the press, calling Republicans unreasonable and extreme.

Ultimately, the future of the bill is uncertain. Even with the urgency of border security in the minds of the public, strong political headwinds might mean this bill was doomed before it even hit the Senate Floor. Senator Elroy signaled a willingness to listen, compromise and adopt Democratic amendments to the bill in his press conference. Some of their amendments have been adopted, including language that requires additional background checks and psychological evaluations on law enforcement, changes to the commission in charge of Ukraine and Israel aid, help for asylum seekers in need of jobs, and restrictions on law enforcement from destroying aid provided to immigrants at the border. But the big sticking point, DACA, was shot down by Republicans. A compromise might still be possible, but if recent years are any indication, it seems foolish to get one’s hopes up.

December 16, 2023

Future of College Anti-Semitism Bill Uncertain After Democratic Amendments

In the aftermath of the October 7th attacks conducted by Hamas against Israeli civilians, a wave of activist action, protests, and, at times, violence, has stirred controversy in the United States. In particular, the activities of students protesting against Israel’s role in the conflict have caused outrage and shock among conservatives, Jews, and many moderate liberals. Calls quickly arose to address the antisemitism and radicalism that has seemingly infected large parts of academia, calls that Republicans have only been so happy to seize. Under a new Republican majority, one of the first bills considered this session has been the Stop Campus Anti-Semitism Act (now called the Stop Campus Hate Act). But even with such a simple objective, its future is far from clear.

Statements and actions made in the weeks and months following the beginning of the latest phase of Israel’s conflict with Gaza by student groups drew great public ire, and not just from conservatives. Even many moderates and liberals were dismayed at student groups seeming to dismiss the 10/7 attacks or even side with Hamas from their perspective. This exposed potential fractures in the Democratic coalition especially, although some discord was also found among the hardline Right. Nonetheless, Republicans sought to capitalize on the issue in 2024, with the Stop Campus Anti-Semitism Act the result.

Proposed by Missouri US Senator Michael Goreski (R), the bill originally focused on combatting advocates of “genocide or extermination” against “any ethnic or religious group.” Colleges that received federal funding would be barred from allowing the use of their resources, facilities, or property for any group that advocates genocide and extermination of any ethnic or religious group; any group that expresses support for any act of genocide or attempted genocide; or any group that expresses support for violent terrorist acts against civilians. They could also not allow their resources or property to be used for events that hosted speakers that violated those rules. Any colleges that failed to comply would forfeit their federal funding and be required to reimburse the federal government.

In a press release, Senator Goreski said, “On October 7, 2023, Americans were shocked to see violent barbaric terrorist attacks against civilian populations in Israel. Then, over the next few weeks, Americans were shocked again to see blatant anti-semitism on our college campuses. Calls for the elimination of the Jews, the destruction of Israel, repetitions of the Blood Libel - all of these were brazenly done by radical groups on our college campuses…This ends now. My bill allows the President to withdraw federal funding to any university that supports this kind of radicalism. Under the bill, colleges and universities will have this choice: either give up supporting people and organizations who call for genocide and terrorism, or give up federal funding.”

The bill garnered some Democratic opposition in the Senate. Democrats objected to the bill granting the right to determine if colleges are in violation to the President. Senator Jon Krol (D-NY) offered an amendment to instead have the Secretary of Education in charge of the decision. Senator Don Vinachelli (D-NJ) instead offered an amendment to reserve that decision for Congress, something mocked by some conservative users online as Congress can already make any funding decision it wants regarding universities. The Krol amendment ended up as a part of the bill. Vinachelli also offered an amendment to require universities that receive federal funds to restrict guns on campus, but this amendment did not succeed.

Senate Minority Leader John Starnes (D-VA) then offered an amendment to expand the protections in the bill to every protected class, which in U.S. law includes race, religion, national origin, color, familial status, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and veteran status, among others. This amendment, strangely, also would have Starnes included as a sponsor of the bill. Starnes justified this by saying it made substantive changes to the entire bill, but the amendment only changes a few of the lines of the actual text and was so similar that some Republicans, including Senator Brandon Ewing (R-TX) complained that the changes it made weren’t clear. Senator Starnes, in his typical snarky style, responded to requests for clarification by simply reading out the text of the amendment again. Most observers outside the Senate did not expect this amendment to pass. But then it did.

And it passed easily, with just 16 Republicans as the only dissent. Two of the most notable nay votes include Senators Alex Valdez (R-FL) and Rosalind Spencer (R-TN). Commentators were shocked to see it pass, especially conservative pundits, who had lambasted the amendment as an attempt to give more tools to college administrations to censor conservative voices and student organizations. The outcry got worse when conservative writer Dan McLaughlin pointed out that Starnes also changed the language of the prohibition on advocacy of violence against civilian populations to be more broad, speculating that college administrations would use it to prohibit speakers like Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), who famously wrote an op-ed calling on the government to send in National Guard troops to quell riots and protests in the summer of 2020. This was quickly picked up by right-wing activists as an example of the GOP bending to “woke” policies despite promises to the contrary.

In the wake of this, the bill has lost much of its previous support from conservatives, jeopardizing its standing in public opinion polls. Republican support for the bill now polls at only 45% of Republicans voters, a number that has faced a steep downward trajectory as more Republicans tune in to their favorite political commentators. Democratic voters have seen their support climb from a tepid 57% to a stronger 68%, with the main opposition coming from hardline progressives who originally opposed the bill anyway. Independents also saw a decline in support, mainly from right-leaning Independents but also from some center-left independents.

With declining public support amongst its original base, the future of the bill is uncertain. President Ross’s administration has now come out against it, telling Politico: “The President is deeply disappointed that the anti-semitic bill meant to protect Jewish students who are being physically harmed on college campuses across the country by radical pro-hamas leftists became a bill that implements Democrats woke agenda that is anti-American and pro-Jewish hate. She is currently meeting the Department of Education and DOJ to see the best way forward to protect our Jewish students from hate and violence of the radical left.”

Some politicians on the Hill remain supportive, however. Senator Camilo deSonido (I/D-CO), a staunch and controversial advocate of the Palestinian cause, did not give a clear answer on his current support for the bill when contacted by Politico. His Chief of Staff, Nathaniel Jackson, said: “Senator deSonido is working with Senators on both sides of the aisle to ensure that the language is universally fair and universally protects the right to free speech and protects from hate speech. This is a complex balance but the Senator is optimistic that we will arrive at a point in which we can get something passed.” When asked if he supported the bill in its current form, as there is a pending motion to end debate, his office responded that he “supports the [S]enators fighting to ensure that whatever form the bill passes is right for the whole of our country.“

Politico also reached out to the offices of Senate Majority Leader Butch Elroy (R-WV), Senate Minority Leader Starnes, and Senator Goreski, but we have not received a reply as of the time of publication.

While the controversial amendment to the hate legislation passed easily, the backlash among many voters has complicated the process, and with the President now coming out against the bill, its chances of making it into law are slim to none. The Senate GOP might try to salvage the bill, or they might pass it anyway, as the changes made clearly did not bother them before the controversy. Either way, the path the bill takes to passage has gotten a lot longer.

December 12, 2023

Q1, 2025: Post-Election Voter Priorities Survey

WASHINGTON, D.C. - With a new Congress sworn in and a new Presidential administration taking charge, it is important to examine the priorities of voters so leaders can be more responsive and voters can judge them later on how well their concerns were addressed by those in power. The election of last year was dominated by many issues both domestic and foreign, including economic discontent, crime and unrest, immigration, foreign aid, involvement in foreign conflicts, and more. Pew conducted a survey of a large sample of American citizens to determine the priorities they expect our new leaders to address.

The following numbers reflect what percentage of voters identified a given issue as a "top priority" for the new Congress and the Ross Administration.

Inflation/Cost-of-Living - 72%

Healthcare - 60%

Immigration/Border Security - 60%

Reducing Crime and Public Disorder - 59%

Improving Education - 57%

Controlling Spending/Taxation - 54%

Improving Energy - 50%

The Job Situation - 47%

Addressing Fentanyl Crisis - 45%

Climate Change - 40%

Abortion Access - 37%

Combatting Antisemitism - 37%

Gaza War/Israel - 36%

The economy tops the list of voter concerns right now. 72% of voters say a top priority for Congress should be addressing inflation and cost-of-living, with the cost of housing and groceries often listed as top consumer complaints. With strong employment numbers continuing over from Joe Biden’s tenure, prioritization of jobs has taken somewhat of a back seat. Only 47% of voters list “the job situation” as a top priority for Congress and the incoming Ross Administration.

60% of voters say healthcare should be a top priority for Congress and President Ross. This is a particularly high concern for Democratic voters, with independents and then Republicans following at a much lower rate.

60% of voters also say addressing immigration through the southern border should be a top priority for Congress and the Ross Administration, but in contrast to healthcare, this issue is dominated by concern from Republicans and most independents, with prioritization from Democratic voters much lower for the most part. It has ticked up in recent years, however, as many Democratic bastions such as New York City and Chicago have struggled with local resources for migrants sent to their cities.

59% of voters say reducing crime and public disorder should be a top priority for the new Congress and executive, though this includes less than half of Democrats.

Education also remains high on voters’ list of priorities. 57% of voters, including majorities of Republicans, Democrats, and independents, say that improving the education system should be a priority for the government. Though Republican priority remains noticeably lower than Democratic concern, this issue has seen convergence in recent years as Republicans’ priority on conservative education concerns grew.

54% of voters say that controlling government spending and taxation should be a priority for the White House and Congress. This issue has seen an upward trend in importance for voters over the last couple of years for both parties and independents, but particularly for Republicans and many independents.

50% of voters say Congress and the incoming Ross administration should prioritize improving the energy system. 45% of voters are saying that addressing the fentanyl crisis (or the drug epidemic in general) should be a top priority for Congress. 40% say that addressing the threat of climate change and protecting the environment are a priority, a coalition with a particularly large concentration of young and progressive voters.

37% of voters say protecting abortion access should be a top priority, with high percentages of Democrats largely behind the number, joined by a significant set of independents and a scarce few Republicans.

The Gaza War also still ranks significantly in voter concerns thanks to America’s ties to Israel, heart-wrenching international headlines, domestic unrest and controversies related to the war, and America’s large Jewish population. These concerns are also largely tied to concerns about combatting antisemitism. 37% of voters say combatting antisemitism should be a priority, compared to 36% for the Gaza War. The American public still polls with large majorities backing Israel generally, with a loud minority largely on the left flank of the Democratic Party being more sympathetic to Gazans. This issue peaked in importance to voters in late 2023 after the October 7th attacks and early 2024 during the course of the war, but it has somewhat decreased since then.

December 12, 2023

November 15, 2023

33 minutes ago, niftywalrus said:

Current Place of Residence: Fort Worth Texas

Does Fort Worth ever cross your mind?

November 11, 2023

Good luck, DMH! Also ftr, I think he is also signing out NSA Kabbani.

November 10, 2023

LOA tonight and tomorrow, Saturday the 11th.

November 10, 2023

Bill from Arizona Congressman Juan Ciscomani would make fleeing law enforcement a federal offense | Fronteras

President Tommy Diaz

"Hello, CPAC! It is an honor to be here addressing you all tonight as the son of immigrants, a proud American, a committed conservative, and the President of the United States of America!

"When I was running for President last year, I called D.C. out for forgetting the values of the Americans it is supposed to represent. We had faceless, unelected bureaucrats operating with no accountability to the people, heaping costs and red tape on job creators. We had politicians determined to tax our way to economic success, with no plan or will to make the cuts to big government that need to happen if we want sustainability and economic freedom. We had an economy where millions of American families are being left behind and no plan to get them back up to speed. We had a border crisis that Washington not only failed to address but actually told Americans they should welcome! In short, the mantra of big government--the 'we-can-do-everything-for-you-better' attitude of elites, along with no accountability or responsibility, reigned supreme.

"Since then, my administration has taken firm action to reverse that ugly state of affairs and put Washington back in sync with the values of the American people. On day one, I signed several executive orders aimed precisely at the overbearing elites of the capital, deflating their big heads and giving oxygen back to the people.

"First, I reinstated the Mexico City Policy, a common-sense pro-life policy that keeps American taxpayer dollars from funding abortions overseas. I am unapologetically pro-life, but the proposition that American taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for abortion at home, let alone overseas, is far from controversial or even partisan. Most Americans have consistently opposed taxpayer funding of abortion for decades, but Democratic administrations like that of my predecessor have insisted on ignoring the clear will of the people, shoveling their dollars to abortions overseas with the gusto and enthusiasm they would here too if not for the Hyde Amendment. But my administration will not disregard traditional American values as backwards, outmoded, or quaint. We stand with the people who elect us, not against them.

"I also took decisive action against the seemingly never-ending expansion of the unelected regulatory state. I ordered federal regulators to rescind two regulations for every new regulation they enact, aiming to reduce the overall cost on the economy imposed by bureaucrats who previously expected no accountability from the people whose lives they interfere with. Americans are tired of seeing jobs lost to overzealous regulators forcing through arbitrary rules and collecting a paycheck no matter how many jobs they kill. Entrepreneurs are tired of endless paperwork and red tape required to expand their business, build new infrastructure, create new jobs, invest in better training or facilities, and build up their communities. I promised the American people we would stop sacrificing our ability to move forward on the altar of managerial excess, and now, we are delivering like never before.

"The halls of power often impose ridiculous credential requirements on the best jobs of our society, but we all know it doesn't have to be that way. While further education will always be required for many jobs, many more are perfectly suited to education at cheaper, more accessible institutions like community colleges, trade schools, or apprenticeships. The skills of the American people are boundless, but we have failed to promote and take advantage of our potential to the fullest extent because of a misguided narrow focus on expensive, elite institutions of higher education captured by the progressive elite. But my administration is taking steps to expand options for Americans who know that isn't the path for them.

"I signed an executive order expanding access to apprenticeships throughout the country for working folks who want to expand their skillset and advance in their career but know that college isn't for them. I'm not here to tell your kids they have to spend tens of thousands of dollars to access a middle-class living for their future; I'm here to say, there's more than one way to achieve success in life, and under my leadership, the government won't be picking favorites anymore. Believe me when I say we aren't done with reform aimed at creating an accessible, flexible job environment today and for the next generation.

"While we are thinking of opportunity for the next generation, we must recognize that the current spending habits of Washington are unsustainable. Every year, we spend hundreds of billions more than we take in, despite record tax revenues. Folks, it isn't just a revenue problem like the Democrats love to say; it's a spending problem. Economists will tell you that any move back to fiscal responsibility can't rely solely on massive tax hikes, unless you think massive damage to the economy and shrinking opportunity for everyone is a good pitch to voters.

"Democrats would rather 'stick it to the rich' and see the people poorer and the economy worse off than produce an actual sustainable, targeted package designed to restore fiscal stability without gouging chunks out of the economy. Why? Well, like Ronald Reagan said, the problem is that they know so much that isn't so. In this case, they 'know' that whatever sounds good, whatever makes for a nice little soundbite on TV, must also be good policy. And who wouldn't like to stick the problem on someone else? The issue is, the real world is a lot more complicated. My administration has secured a commitment to address the deficit and will be insisting on real spending reform as part of our budgetary process. It's time for Washington to get in touch with the thrifty values of the people and remember that we can't spend beyond our means forever.

"Unfortunately, this session, we have seen some nasty obstruction from the Democrats. While I remain hopeful that future cooperation is possible, I am not encouraged by the actions of Senate Democrats under John Starnes. His caucus first moved to unceremoniously block the nomination of Governor Jindal for HHS in an unprecedented move in modern political history. Over nothing but political differences--not moral objections or demonstrable incompetence or corruption--they threw out his nomination. In many ways, that was a preview of what we are seeing now with the Supreme Court nomination.

"Last year, I ran on appointing a responsible jurist to the Supreme Court should an opening occur. We need jurists dedicated to the rule of law, who will make decisions and issue opinions based on the letter and history of the law, not on their personal policy preferences. To do so is to usurp power from the people and their elected representatives, and since there is no real accountability for the Supreme Court, it is a particularly egregious abuse of authority that threatens the democratic foundations of our republic. The American people elected me on that promise to protect the proper role of the judiciary and appoint Justices who will respect their Constitutional rights and the rule of law. That is why I have nominated Judge Meg Ryan to the Supreme Court.

"Even before speaking with Judge Ryan, they came out hard against her, smearing her past decisions with lies, calling her unqualified, and promising to vote against her nomination. Judge Ryan's military background, they said, made her an inferior pick for the Supreme Court. Her time as a clerk for the federal judiciary and the Supreme Court apparently doesn't count. Her extensive citations and demonstrated understanding of civilian law in her opinions apparently doesn't either. They said she was in favor of racism. They lied about her decision in a free speech case to insinuate she bent the law around to allow for abhorrent racist activities in the Armed Forces, completely against the substance and facts of the case. Even once these lies were exposed and once their allegations of inexperience were dismantled by her performance in public Senate hearings, they insisted on them. It isn't because they actually believe them, folks.

"It is because of how they view the Supreme Court. To them, the Supreme Court is the ultimate prize, an unelected superlegislature of elites installed for life. Once they make a decision, it can't be undone, so it is the perfect way to force policies down the throats of the American people even if they don't want them. Elite liberals know that their ideas may not prevail in the public square, but with their institutional capture of many elite colleges and with the unaccountable nature of the Supreme Court, they know how they can get what they want anyway. They can't let the people decide issues for themselves through their votes and their elected representatives because they might choose wrongly, in their view. Because of this, they have committed themselves to fictions about a qualified judge because they can't accept a responsible jurist who would respect the proper place of the judiciary and return power to the people.

"But we will not stop standing up for the will of the people, the proper role of government, separation of powers, and the rule of law. We will not relent from our pursuit of smaller government, greater economic prosperity, protections for constitutional rights, policy that aligns with the values of the American people, and a new era of American excellence. But all of this is just the beginning, and our wins so far won't mean anything if we can't keep the momentum up. That is where folks like you and the folks at home come into the picture. Everyone has a role to play in our fight, be it at the ballot box, as a volunteer, on a campaign, or as a candidate yourself. So get involved, pay attention, do your research, and join us! Together, we will move mountains and put our country back on the right path!"

November 10, 2023