Spamage for President HQ: Thank you. (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 31, 2024, 09:42:23 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Spamage for President HQ: Thank you. (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Spamage for President HQ: Thank you.  (Read 4847 times)
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,761
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« on: August 29, 2013, 07:18:24 PM »

Maybe instead of satisfying your outlandish attacks he could speak on the role that vitriol, hatred, snobbery, and personal attacks play in discouraging people from participating in Atlasia. I, for one, could write a novel. See, activity being at a record low isn't just unlucky or coincidental. People who are treated like garbage don't generally want to re-engage in the process. We should be thankful that someone as talented as Spamage is choosing to continue the discourse and rise above the tripe—something you are unable to do now and something your president and chairman were unable to do last election.

Either way, while it may be true that the president should be able to deal with all kinds of outright crap from the likes of people like you, TNF, it is not true that this is the Atlasia on which anyone should settle. Instead of playing into the problem and calling out the "inactivity" of people who have actually given selflessly of their time to this game (Spamage just defended his record in beautiful fashion), perhaps it would be wiser to argue on the merits of their campaign. Bullying Federalists out of the game is a strategy that can only last so long.

Plus, Nix already came very close to losing an election that should have easily been his. Maybe he'll have the balls to tell you himself or maybe he won't—I don't know. But he came so close to losing—and I really believe this—because your guys went way too negative. So think carefully about how you proceed. Nix as president is no better than Nix as senator. The ship can still sink. And if it's not Nix who's running, you really aren't doing your side any favours—because no one else from your party can rival him.

So good luck with your strategy. Roll Eyes
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,761
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #1 on: September 04, 2013, 12:33:10 AM »
« Edited: September 04, 2013, 12:42:03 AM by HagridOfTheDeep »

What reasons?

I am very torn on this issue myself. Most of what I've been reading shows that the economic impacts of Right to Work are rather muddled. The jobs growth argument, to me, is slightly deceptive. During different periods of time, union-shop states and Right to Work states have both held the distinction of being the regions with better growth. I think that fact alone kind of neutralizes the arguments in favour of Right to Work. On the other hand, the argument from organized labour isn't much better: While wages are visibly higher in states with mandatory union membership, the cost of living is also very high. In the end, it works out so that the "real income" isn't much different between either labour structure.

So to me, the economic arguments are rather moot. I err on the side of wanting to give individuals the freedom not to be forced into joining an organization with which they don't agree, but by the same token, I don't think it's unfair to call Right to Work anything other than an attack on organized labour. Why would anyone want to pay union dues when they can just mooch off the accomplishments of the union at their workplace anyway? They wouldn't. As such, membership declines, the unions lose whatever influence they once had, and the workers no longer have a voice. I think it's a serious consideration, not just in terms of wages and benefits, but also in terms of workplace safety.

I like the Rand Formula in Canada. It permits dues check-off, but it also holds that a worker does not have to affiliate with the union at his or her workplace. I guess it's slightly superficial if you're still paying into the activities of the union, but the person would still have the "right to work" if the union decided its workers were going to strike. How else do you balance freedom of association with the reality that unions benefit all workers at a workplace?
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,761
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

« Reply #2 on: September 04, 2013, 04:43:08 PM »

I should say, I don't expect people who usually support Right to Work to like the Rand Formula. It's just one of those things that kind of works for me. But I'm less right-wing on this issue than others. Not all of you should rally around the Rand Formula without reading about it first... It could end up being a little shallow. Only because, straight up, I don't think it's the most JCLish thing in the world. Tongue
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 11 queries.