Dixiecrat Party

[-]

Economically center-left, socially center-right

Positions-

Abortion- neutral, against it personally, but not going to tell anyone they can't have one.

Gay rights- anti-marriage, pro-civil unions

Environment- we need to protect God's creation, anti-logging, pro-cap-and-trade (this is contrary to historical Dixiecrat positions)

Economic centrism, limited unions, pro Wall St. Regulation.

Fiscal responsibility except in national recession/crisis. Pay-as-you-go strongly promoted.

Health Care- for eliminating pre-existing conditions and implementing individual mandate, strongly anti-public option.

Foreign policy- We don't attack you of you don't attack us.

[-]

Well, as for logging, some species (such as the Spotted Owl) require old-growth forests that have been established for hundreds of years.

As for cap-and-trade, in the short-term it will cause some problems, but in the long-term is a good investment.

Thank you for explaining your positions, since I'm new.

[-]

For the record, Atlasia also has a public option health care system in place.

Ugh.

[-]

Oh, and this new party is anti-affirmitive action, which is a horribly outdated policy.

[-]

Now when is this party going to be listed on the Wiki?

[-]

Now when is this party going to be listed on the Wiki?

It isn't recognised as a major party till it has 5 members.

Ugh. Well, I better start recruiting.

[-]

Anyways, I'll join the Dixiecrats if I can become its co-founder, or co-Chair, or something like that.

Sure.

That's two.

And I will read up on more Atlasian history, Dr. Cynic...

[-]

Poll posted.

[-]

I'll join, but I'm still a but its still slightly conservative for me.

I'll be the Bill Halter of the Dixiecrat party!

And I'm great with that Miles.

A party that can contain people like Blanche Lincoln and Bill Halter is a good, viable party.

Glad to have you in the party!!

[-]

I'm not joining the Dixiecrat party unless it moves farther to the left. The good old Jesus Christ Party suits me just fine.

Miles has joined the party so the party is going to move slightly left, but what would something that the two of you want?

[-]

Okay, Dixiecrat TODAY stands for consenus-building without ideological purism, people who believe compromise is better than gridlock.

And yes, Dixiecrats did initially emerge as part of the southern segregationist movement, but that faction has left to go to the GOP, leaving a small portion of new Dixiecrats, moderates and consensus-builders.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.  


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked.  

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

Bob Ethridge is not a Blue Dog. He's just using it as a sort of protection.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

Bob Ethridge is not a Blue Dog. He's just using it as a sort of protection.

Yea, and many others do as well.

I've found that many Blue Dogs are fakes.

[-]

I don't think I'll be joining any time soon, but new parties are always good, so I wish you well.

Thanks.

[-]

It's obvious by looking at the poll that if my party is to survive, the platfrom needs to be moved left.

Any suggestions on what would make the platform better for those who voted "No, platform needs to be moved to the left"?

[-]

Miles and I are proud to present

THE OFFICIAL PLATFORM OF THE DIXIECRAT PARTY

We are a socially conservative party, with exceptions of abortion and physician assisted suicide (if patient is within 6 months of death and mentally stable). This means we are

•   Anti-gay marriage (civil unions are permitted)

•   Pro-death penalty

•   Anti-affirmative action, which is an antiquated policy that has become reverse discrimination

On environmental issues, we are a party of proud progressives.

•   We are in favor of a cap-and-trade system.

•   We need to protect our forests for future generations

•   We are in favor of making sure that renewable energy sources are the least expensive, and if that means temporary rate hikes, so be it.

On foreign policy, our position is simple- DON’T TREAD ON ME. In other words, we don’t attack you if you don’t attack us. If you attack us, well, let’s just say you’ll regret it. We are firmly against the Preemption doctirine.

On economic issues, we believe in regulating industry to the point where the working Joe isn’t taken advantage of.

•   We believe in limited unions. Just enough so wages are fair, but they don’t grow large enough to do what they did to Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

•   We are in favor of eliminating derivatives once and for all.

•   We need to regulate Wall St. investors, not let the investors go crazy and ruin the savings of average Americans.

•   We believe that free trade can work, but the playing field must be level for all. To protect American workers, we need to impose tariffs to make making things in America the cheaper alternative.

•   The Fair Tax is NOT FAIR. The rich need to be taxed more than the little guy.

On campaign finance, the Supreme Court ruling was unacceptable. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CITIZENS. And the CoC should tell us where the money is coming from.

And we are in favor of banning legislators from EVER becoming lobbyists.

We hope you'll join.

KS21

Co-Chairman

[-]

I like the platform, enough to join the party; however, I have a huge problem with the section on labor.  Unions are extremely important in ensuring fairness to workers, and the idea of weakening them is absurd.

The point is not so much weakening labor as much as it is to prevent them from becoming left-wing CoC's.

One of the ideas I like is using the "Baby Bell" (AT&T) proposal and dividing unions like the AFL-CIO (just to name an example) into smaller chunks where they can still demand rights from corporations but not enough that they can use their funds to knowck politicians out.

[-]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

[-]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

I agree fully. I was a protectionist till 2007. I grew up in rural NE PA. Right in the middle of downtown Hallstead PA is a collapsed rusted Steel plant.

The reason I gave up on it was I realized several critical facts. Among them are that trade is now far more important to the economy then it was just ten years ago more or less decades ago. And we saw what Smoot Hawley did with trade accounting for 3% of the economy in 1930, international business accounts for 15% to 20% of US GDP now, if not more. Granted the effect of Smoot-Hawley is exaggerated by the effect of Depressionary deflation and separating the data is impossible. But we know it was negative as US cars and radios (our most important exports in 1930) were shut out of most European countries. We won't know  ever know how many people Henry Ford layed off because of decreased demand in New York and what was decreased demand in Italy. When demand falls its not like its tagged based on origin on the final spreadsheet ( ).

Now we have seen to more things occur and that is as you said, we are fighting against significantly lower wages, meaning we would need very high tariffs to overcome the disadvantage. Those high levels would be retaliated against. Anything less wouldn't be effective because we are still at a disadvantage. But then you reach a point where you risk wiping out 20% of the economic demand that is based on trade. Thats I would advise to be carefull about it.

One more thing that we have seen is that, tariffs to protect one industry like the steel in 2001 damaged another weak manufacturing industry, the auto industry. Yet those tariffs didn't prevent significant layoffs in Steel industry and probably actually caused layoffs in the auto industry. So once again, you have to be carefull to look for such unintended consequences. And effectiveness of the tariff has to be considered.

This is your platform, not mine, it should represent your beleifs and the beleifs of the party you want to create. I just wanted to provide you with an arguement that you may not have seen before in this combination on trade, and to urge caution in pursuing tariffs to avoid unintended consequences.

Your argument has a point. Effectiveness has to be considered. But I would like to point out the Japanese have tarrifs on many of our products, and it has worked quite well for the Japanese corporations in weeding out remaining American products from tehir markets. Tarrifs can work. THey have in teh past. But as you point out, they can backfire in some cases.

[-]

Quick question. Given that current Atlasian law enforces marriage equality (ie - everyone has civil union) what benefit is there in making it unequal?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it has been detrimental?

The problem with gay marriage is that it is a delicate overlap of religion and law. A civil union (marriage except in name) would avoid a possible religion-vs.-law battle and still allow gays full civil rights.

[-]

Quick question. Given that current Atlasian law enforces marriage equality (ie - everyone has civil union) what benefit is there in making it unequal?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it has been detrimental?

The problem with gay marriage is that it is a delicate overlap of religion and law. A civil union (marriage except in name) would avoid a possible religion-vs.-law battle and still allow gays full civil rights.

Is it not dangerous for a government to simply presume that 'religions' collectively don't want gay marriage and therefore impliment a seperation? Why should the state bar the right of Liberal Jews, Unitarians, Quakers and liberal Protestant churches from performing recognised gay marriage ceremonies if they so wish.

Again, I'm just curious - we have full partnership equality in Atlasia. Does your policy mean that you wish to re-entrench inequality by bringing back a 'seperate but equal' segregation?. If it does (and I am aware that you are new to this) it makes you probably the least gay friendly party in Atlasia.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my opinion- period.

I am in favor of the Washingoton State model, which grants all rights that heterosexual couples have to gays EXCEPT the word marriage.

[-]

Quick question. Given that current Atlasian law enforces marriage equality (ie - everyone has civil union) what benefit is there in making it unequal?

Do you have any evidence to suggest that it has been detrimental?

The problem with gay marriage is that it is a delicate overlap of religion and law. A civil union (marriage except in name) would avoid a possible religion-vs.-law battle and still allow gays full civil rights.

Is it not dangerous for a government to simply presume that 'religions' collectively don't want gay marriage and therefore impliment a seperation? Why should the state bar the right of Liberal Jews, Unitarians, Quakers and liberal Protestant churches from performing recognised gay marriage ceremonies if they so wish.

Again, I'm just curious - we have full partnership equality in Atlasia. Does your policy mean that you wish to re-entrench inequality by bringing back a 'seperate but equal' segregation?. If it does (and I am aware that you are new to this) it makes you probably the least gay friendly party in Atlasia.

I understand your point, but I have to disagree. Marriage is between a man and a woman in my opinion- period.

I am in favor of the Washingoton State model, which grants all rights that heterosexual couples have to gays EXCEPT the word marriage.

So you're fine with the state denying churches who want to marry gays in a recognised relgious ceremony because there is simply a presumption that 'religion' is opposed to it

You're still not answering my question. Given that we already have full marriage equality in Atlasia, in the sense that all straight/gay partnerships are recognised as civil unions do you wish to revise the law?

Yes.