Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

New Historical President RP

Recommended Posts

President Ellis announces she will not seek a third term, believing in a two term precedent, she will wait to endorse until potential Liberal primaries are over.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senator Leroy D. Upton of North Carolina endorses Former Vice President Trebuano for the presidency.

We need a true fighter in the oval office again and I believe Carly is this fighter. I trust her and I urge all people who are conservative-minded and down-to-earth to vote for her. This country needs true leadership again and Carly will provide it no matter what problems might be ahead of us. In order to give us a working majority I also urge all the people who care about small government to vote for the Conservative Party in all races. Thank you and God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Fmr. Vice President Carly Trebuano

56 year-old White Woman

Conservative

Michigan

Sen. Dan Cruz (C-FL)

We will defend our ability to effectively govern and our defense of American Security, Liberty, and Values.

National Strength: This administration's ineptitude on the national stage has been born for all the world to see. We can no longer afford this weak leadership when faced with a mysterious Russian superpower. We will attack the Liberals inconsistency and weakness on the Russia question and we pledge to stand against them and to become the most powerful nation on the planet, we can not afford any less when faced with the possibility of a Russo-Chinese superwar.

Military: We cannot afford to lose our bases and our military superiority in the Atlantic and Pacific theaters. This President has run one show of a Defense Department ripe with incompetence and disobedience. It's time for competent and strong leadership, and the Conservatives have a record of this. From spearheading the war effort as Senate Leader under President Talbot to keeping us safe as Vice President under my mentor President Hillsbury, I have the Defense credentials we so desperately need in these trying times.

Foreign Affairs: We need to bolster our allies in Europe and Asia against a possible Russo-Chinese superwar. We don't want to be involved unless our great allies are threatened or one of these powers teeters on hegemony. American influence and interests are not to be sacrificed in the sake of political war or political peace. National Security is not a political game.

Economy: We MUST denationalize the shipping industry. The entire Conservative Party and much of the Liberal Party is united around this but yet again the President stonewalls freedom and progress. This is our day 1 Trade policy, denationalize and make trade deals like there is no tomorrow. Furthermore, we have to fight against the overbearing, job killing, and unconstitutional advances of Socialism. We stand for a free and Conservative economy. We are glad that our economists and economic theory have kept the market stable even as we have a Liberal in the White House. We do acknowledge the President for her ceding the Liberal Platform regarding regulation to the Conservative platform of the same.

Trade: As seen above, denationalization is one of the biggest initiatives we hope to embark as we march forward into the 50s, hoping to form a more powerful America. This is of the utmost importance and we even reach out to Libertarian Liberals to support some of our candidates in an order to keep the economy free and growing and to shrink the government.

Budget: This has grown to be a bipartisan issue, no one wants debt and we will keep it this way.

Social Issues: The socialist policies of corrupting our values and defiling Marriage is absolutely ridiculous, we stand for funding of education programs for our children and other types of PSAs in order to keep our nation safe from threats against these values. We rally the Moralist base with these issues and point to the Liberals and Socialists as parties of moral decay at odds with the supermajority of decent Americans.

Immigration: Perhaps we should begin to cut back into immigration restrictions in order to keep the economic growth for Americans. We'll be bringing this up as a lower priority issue in order to stabilize the economy.

Mood: Likewise, as we have said, we'll be making sure we only intervene if American influence is threatened.

Party: We campaign heavily on Defense, Denationalization, and Moralism to rally an American people ready for a change to strong leadership.

President: We mostly focus on her administration's Defense blunders and attack Socialist/Liberal policies, not politicians, in other areas.

 

OOC: o noes, rip me ;-;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name and office: Sec. of State Kristen Langford

Age: 62

Party: Liberal

Resident state: Former Senator from Iowa

VP nominee: Gov. Jerry Francis (L-MA)

Key Issue to Defend in Theoretical Debate:

Platform (see State of the Union):

National Strength: Under the leadership of President Ellis, she has managed to contain the Russians and the Chinese. We have not seen a major war since the Chinese-British war in East Asia. Our plans are working there. Russia has not attacked anyone yet, and we are working to shore up those who will contain them. We propose to train militaries on the Russian border, including Romania, Turkey (assuming the Ottoman fell), Bulgaria, Austria, Germany, and Sweden. 

Military Strength: We think this is adequate for now, but we may have to call up some in the future if China begins to make dangerous moves in the Pacific, or the Russians do in Europe. 

Foreign Affairs: Russia and China are our biggest threats globally. We need to handle them with a competent foreign policy, which Conservatives seem to lack the policy know-how to do. Liberals have kept the Chinese and Russians at bay. While I ran the State Department, I went all across the globe shoring up support for our alliance against these two foes. I have the foreign policy chops and I know how to handle the Russians and the Chinese both. Russia itself has not invaded anyone as of yet, but we always must keep on our guard. We believe this is for a specific reason, and we are working to figure out what that is.

Military: Sec. Langford would like to broach the idea of a military base in Europe, possibly based in Southern France. Since we helped them in their civil war, we could frame it as an anniversary of it, while training French troops. That way, we could easily keep up to date with our European allies on Russia. She would speak with French, German, and British leaders about if any of their countries would be willing to do that. She would speak with Persia on China, as well. 

Economy: Liberals have maintained the economy well over the past 8 years. We have taken over after unprecedented growth, and we enacted a huge infrastructure bill, yet managed to balance the budget. We point out that we were the stewards of a good economy, and that we will continue to grow it in the next election and every election after that. Our main focus is on the military, but we do propose a large tariff raise on China, Russia, and their conspirators. Any puppet governments would be subject to this massive tariff raise as well. 

Trade: We take the attack to the Conservatives over their denationalization plans. They seem to prefer to stick to policy hit points than do what's best for the American consumer, which is what the Liberal platform was. We proposed exploratory deregulation, and then we'd evaluate after that if it grew or hit the national economy. They seemed to want to denationalize no matter what, even if it was bad for the American consumer. We point out that they wanted their policy, not prosperity. 

Budget: Little to say here than we have already said.

Social Harmony: We are grateful the country has united.

Immigration: We dealt with the housing crisis in a reasonable form, and as we predicted, it went away. High unemployment is another issue. We propose to tackle it with a massive jobs-aid service, proposing that the government goes out of its way to bring employers and employees together, by matching what they did in college or have done before, connecting them with jobs in other states. 

Mood of the people: This is a reasonable concern, and I have detailed what I'd do above. 

Party Power: We urge people to vote Liberal down ballot, especially in local races. That's where we need wins the most.

Popularity of the Incumbent: We run close to the President, as she ended relatively popular, nearing 60% approval. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC: anyone mind if i just edit woodburrow and say he created a party with Curtis, a hard center-right party called the libertarians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, NYConservative said:

OOC: anyone mind if i just edit woodburrow and say he created a party with Curtis, a hard center-right party called the libertarians?

I think that'd be plausible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna delay the election until he makes up his mind; I warn you though starting a new party is a lot more effort than a few sentences. Note how the Socialist party started even with a lot of effort. Plus, being a Conservative going Libertarian with a strong Conservative candidate and a strong Liberal candidate to keep those libertarians in is going to be tough.

 

You'd have more luck with populism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kingthero said:

being a Conservative going Libertarian with a strong Conservative candidate and a strong Liberal candidate

Please explain the liberal part to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kingthero said:

I'm gonna delay the election until he makes up his mind

Already done, the Libertarian party, a harder, farther right winged party with a few center-left stances will be added.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Conservatives welcome this new Libertarian party but are perplexed by their stance on foreign issues, while they support that stance they question this sudden lurching departure from the Libertarian ideology in America and more poignantly we needle the party on their odiously anti-denationalization position which they have cemented into their party. They still tell Free Market voters that the Conservatives are the best vote for them as opposed to the Liberals and Socialists, as well as the Libertarians who seem to now take their economic marching orders from the Big Government Left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The Conservatives welcome this new Libertarian party but are perplexed by their stance on foreign issues, while they support that stance they question this sudden lurching departure from the Libertarian ideology in America and more poignantly we needle the party on their odiously anti-denationalization position which they have cemented into their party. They still tell Free Market voters that the Conservatives are the best vote for them as opposed to the Liberals and Socialists, as well as the Libertarians who seem to now take their economic marching orders from the Big Government Left.

In counter, Mr. Woodburrow and a few other Libertarians needle the Conservative party's weak stances on denationalization, military and budget issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm putting this roleplay on a short break for about 5 days. You all can still debate and attack eachother in the meantime, but I just won't be posting election results.

 

My schedule is getting chugged up with a huge amount of work (started around 34 now its up to 38 hours), college work (which luckily I have done a lot of), and other obligations.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, NYConservative said:

In counter, Mr. Woodburrow and a few other Libertarians needle the Conservative party's weak stances on denationalization, military and budget issues.

The Conservatives point at that this is a nonsense attack and shows serious lack of understanding of current events and political ideas. 

The Conservatives are much stronger on denationalization than the Libertarians, that is not debatable, they betray Small Government economics when they fight against it and for Socialism. This is a losing issue for their party so we are glad to bring it up because it only shows their base that the Conservative Party is a better home for them.

Furthermore, their military stances are not only disconnected with their base, but they lack any substance other than aggression. The Conservatives have a formulated Defense plan and Mrs. Trebuano has far more Defense credentials than Mr. Woodburrow, another losing issue for the Libertarians which are happy to bring up to show them that we are their better party/

And finally, regarding budget, what issue? We are running a surplus and everyone, bar the extremist Socialists, want to keep it that way. We are advocating for shrinking government, the Libertarians aren't when they make rash Defense statements and defend Socialist economics. It is as simple as that.

We begin to question if the Libertarian Party really exists to serve American Libertarians and their ideas or if it is just a rushed and quickly put together vehicle for Mr. Woodburrow's weakening political career. 

In any event, it has been made clear by the Conservatives and even the so-called Libertarians that it is the Conservative campaign that best suits their interest to get the reforms needed passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2018 at 10:54 AM, NYConservative said:

Popularity of the Incumbent: We give some valid reasons of "gaffe's" by her administration while pointing out her weak stances on the Military and Immigration.

 

Liberal policymakers slam the "Libertarian" attack on their immigration and military platforms. Immigration has not been a sizeable problem, even the Conservatives agree with us on this plank. It seems Libertarians would be more willing to launch petty attacks on our President than actually help with an actual military idea, where the President has had to drag military leaders into the future. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

The Conservatives point at that this is a nonsense attack and shows serious lack of understanding of current events and political ideas. 

The Conservatives are much stronger on denationalization than the Libertarians, that is not debatable, they betray Small Government economics when they fight against it and for Socialism. This is a losing issue for their party so we are glad to bring it up because it only shows their base that the Conservative Party is a better home for them.

Furthermore, their military stances are not only disconnected with their base, but they lack any substance other than aggression. The Conservatives have a formulated Defense plan and Mrs. Trebuano has far more Defense credentials than Mr. Woodburrow, another losing issue for the Libertarians which are happy to bring up to show them that we are their better party/

And finally, regarding budget, what issue? We are running a surplus and everyone, bar the extremist Socialists, want to keep it that way. We are advocating for shrinking government, the Libertarians aren't when they make rash Defense statements and defend Socialist economics. It is as simple as that.

We begin to question if the Libertarian Party really exists to serve American Libertarians and their ideas or if it is just a rushed and quickly put together vehicle for Mr. Woodburrow's weakening political career. 

In any event, it has been made clear by the Conservatives and even the so-called Libertarians that it is the Conservative campaign that best suits their interest to get the reforms needed passed.

The Libertarians point at that this "nonsense attack" has shown more sense than this entire statement,  while showing the desperation attempts the Conservatives are making at an attack.

The Libertarians show the facts that denationalization issues is the Libertarian specialty, and prove over and over again the libertarians have picked a stronger anti-denationalization standpoint than the Conservatives weak, minor agenda for denationalization.

Furthermore, the Libertarian military stances are not only connected to our moderate base, but have no substances of aggression and mainly defense, and having the smarts of looking foward in the case of a China attack on either Russia or the US, which are both very likely, while we needle the fact that Mrs. Trebuano and Fmr. President Hillsbury both were weak on the Military stance during their administration. 

In response to their lack of knowledge of the budget, a surplus won't mean much when, bar the socialist idea, we run out of money from that surplus from Mrs. Trebuano's egotistic idea of a budget, and a large government would help this issue tremendously, and not only put us in a larger surplus,but #1 on the national rankings.

We question if this hast, nonsensical rebuttal was made in an attempt to throw the Libertarians off, or the Conservatives on?

At any point during this campaign, it has been proven time and time again to the libertarian base that we are for their values, and not such extremist attempts to make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hestia11 said:

Liberal policymakers slam the "Libertarian" attack on their immigration and military platforms. Immigration has not been a sizeable problem, even the Conservatives agree with us on this plank. It seems Libertarians would be more willing to launch petty attacks on our President than actually help with an actual military idea, where the President has had to drag military leaders into the future. 

The Libertarian members, mainly Mr. Curtis slam the Liberals on the fact they allow nearly everyone, dangerous or not, into the US, and onto the Military, the Libertarians have put foward military visions of defense into perspective for this "great" split, narcissistic Liberal party to look at. So in reality, the Liberals have just given another petty attack on forming parties, filled with lies and narcissistic, irrational and nonsensical views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYConservative said:

The Libertarian members, mainly Mr. Curtis slam the Liberals on the fact they allow nearly everyone, dangerous or not, into the US, and onto the Military, the Libertarians have put foward military visions of defense into perspective for this "great" split, narcissistic Liberal party to look at. So in reality, the Liberals have just given another petty attack on forming parties, filled with lies and narcissistic, irrational and nonsensical views.

Liberal leaders slam the Libertarians, saying that there is no evidence of dangerous immigrants being let into the country. This is a non-issue and will not be addressed further. We see the Libertarians have no real defensive proposals to offer, only willing to launch broadsides against parties that have been established and credible for years. The former senator is clearly past his prime, and his ideas are outdated and useless. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(You're really hurting yourself @NYConservative)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC: Can the "Party Power" text be a little more specific? Almost every candidate says they campaign vigorously against every other party and downballot, but that's already expected. I feel that that part of the platform should be used to explain a focus the party would take under your administration, or voters that the party would work to make bridges with. For example, the SOC-LAB party might attempt to court disgruntled working class whites, while it seems that the Liberal Party is becoming "the party of women". It would make that part of the platform more unique and have an actual impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

OOC: Can the "Party Power" text be a little more specific? Almost every candidate says they campaign vigorously against every other party and downballot, but that's already expected. I feel that that part of the platform should be used to explain a focus the party would take under your administration, or voters that the party would work to make bridges with. For example, the SOC-LAB party might attempt to court disgruntled working class whites, while it seems that the Liberal Party is becoming "the party of women". It would make that part of the platform more unique and have an actual impact. 

I agree. I think some parts of it are just informative, not really to answer. I do anyways, because I don’t really know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OOC: ima just say that Woodburrow and Curtis had a mental illness and a new Libertarian candidate stepped up to lead the party in a more, libertarian view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, NYConservative said:

OOC: ima just say that Woodburrow and Curtis had a mental illness and a new Libertarian candidate stepped up to lead the party in a more, libertarian view.

(Talk about a party in disarray, literally founded by an insane person.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

(Talk about a party in disarray, literally founded by an insane person.)

Is he going make a new one? Or what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×