Presidential Debate Debating Thread

[Lincoln Republican]

Closing Remarks

Thank you Thumb for organizing and moderating these debates.  You have done a great service for Atlasians from coast to coast.

I will keep my closing remarks short and to the point.

First of all, I wish to acknowledge my running mate, Wulfric.  He is a very intelligent, capable, and talented public servant.  It has been my honor to have him on the ticket with me.  He has a bright future ahead of him in Atlasia.  

A Winfield/Wulfric administration will introduce the toughest gun control, registration, and background checks in the history of Atlasia.

This will keep our people safer and more secure.

We support a complete ban on e-cigarettes and vaping in Atlasia.  This practice is harmful and addictive, and can cause death.

We will boost and revitalize our education system so that more Atlasians will have access to post secondary education, in the professions, technology, trades, which will have the effect of bringing down the poverty level.  

Education is the answer to poverty.

And now, if you will allow me to conclude my closing remarks with a statement that I made in my campaign launch.

"From the rugged coasts of the Atlantic to the foam crested coasts of the Pacific, from the southern boarder of Canada to the northern boarder of Mexico, from the majestic mountains of the west to the rich red earth of the south, from the golden corn fields of the midwest to the bustling industry of the northeast, we, as a safe and secure nation, shall shout with one accord,"

"FREE AT LAST, FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY WE'RE FREE AT LAST!"

Thank you my fellow Atlasians.

[thumb21]

Bumping this incase candidates lose it.

[Adam Griffin]

I'd like to apologize for my tardiness in closing out this debate. I've been juggling medical responsibilities with my mother for the past 24 hours and family comes first.

You described your foreign policy as libertarian. In what sorts of situations could you see yourself supporting direct military intervention and what sort of role could economic sanctions play in your administration's foreign policy?

Ultimately, I am not prepared (nor have I ever) supported direct military intervention without justifiable cause. Hell, during all of my terms, we haven't fired a single bullet or bomb at another country. Only a direct attack against our country would precipitate a direct military response from this administration.

There are many tools in the box of executive privilege with respect to handling various crises and conflicts around the world. From diplomacy and humanitarian aid to strong-arming and glad-handing, working out deals should always be pursued first. I'm quite confident that not every administration has exhausted all strategic or diplomatic options in avoiding past conflicts, but I will always seek to avoid nasty foreign entanglements.

I would love to elaboroate on one very specific ongoing discussion our government has been having with the Chinese, but given it's NSC-related, it is currently classified. Needless to say, we have been using our position of strength (which frankly only exists after a reckless war) to improve human rights in the world's largest nation.

With regard to economic sanctions, this form of punishment is always on the table. However, excessive use of the subject will invariably lead to a loss in effectiveness and a Trump-themed fantasy of global tit-for-tat. In any situation where a nation invades another or commits absolute atrocities, however, this administration is prepared to act on the economic front: if you want to be a part of the global economy, then you must be a part of global society. Part of that responsibility entails abandoning unprovoked aggression and hostility to fellow humans.

In response to the Presidents quip about gun control by stating late last year I lead the repeal effort to repeal Lincoln’s horrible gun bill and remain the only serious candidate opposed to gun control on this debate stage. Further I must ask why are you questioning my sincerity in my views when you yourself showed no issue accepting previous conservatives such as Jimmy or DFW becoming liberals. Don’t you feel your acting hypocritical on this issue?

You also sponsored massive gun control legislation and signed it as Governor. Quite the contrary: you are the only "serious candidate" who has overtly proposed legislation curtailing the Second Amendment. Now you are claiming to be its biggest defender.

Your sincerity is questioned because unlike you, others didn't bounce around from party to party every week changing their views over a matter of years. I've always believed in sensible gun control measures that respect individual rights and avoid overreaching; your position is whatever seems most opportune at the moment.

Mr. President you have stated:

 “ I am pro-choice, to put it simply. I believe there is room for discussion in theory, but given where the Right and the Federalist Party is at presently, there is no room for debate in practice.”

Why have you chosen to cowardly abdicate yourself from making an argument on the subject. Don’t you owe the people of Atlasia an argument on why you view abortion the way you do? Once again these divisive narrow minded statements do nothing but divide our society. We see that the left cares about surface area level diversity but not diversity of opinion; as a conservative I believe in both.

The vast majority of the game is pro-choice. This includes a large number of Federalists. However, a fringe anti-choice group now runs the Right's infrastructure in this game, and the remainder of its members seem all too content with going along with it (whether because they simply don't care or don't want to get tongue-lashed and threatened by someone we know is up for debate).

The courts have clarified the parameters of this issue and The People have also made it clear where they stand. Those running public policy on the Right these days are not in line with what the country wishes to see, therefore no sensible policy collaboration on this issue can occur. A small minority of the game doesn't have a fundamental right to upend the Constitution, the courts and/or the will of The People.

As far as "diversity of opinion" goes: I must have missed the EO I issued where I sentenced anybody with a different viewpoint on abortion to the stake! Somebody better update the Wiki. Last time I checked, you're still here expressing your (current) viewpoints freely and fairly. Just because you don't get to implement your personal views into law everywhere you go doesn't mean your "diversity" is under attack.

[Adam Griffin]

CLOSING REMARKS

Ladies and gentlemen, we have seen a productive past four months in every area in which this administration could reasonably be expected to intervene. No major crises or conflicts, a peaceful domestic atmosphere among players, healthy turnover in new players ascending to new offices, near-record levels of legislative policy being passed and a record number of players, among others. Virtually every major indicator of game health and activity is strong - and contrary to the opinions of those who critique my specific method of executive engagement, we have delivered results.

In the next four months, I intend for us to keep our foot on the gas, building upon the legislative progress we've made thus far. From reducing income inequality and safeguarding our environment to exploring the final frontier and protecting worker's rights, this administrative body is ready to continue the charge.

A President is one person, but accomplishing these great feats has required the services of many. From our brilliant cabinet to our productive Congress, it is imperative that the voters who approve of this progress consider the totality of how we've arrived here. With that being said, I am the only candidate in this race who has the skill, relationships and focus to adequately carry out these responsibilities.

There's a reason why the Right didn't bother fielding candidates or even holding primaries this go around: they know I'm capable, they know I'm strong, and they know in their heart of hearts that I'm the best choice to lead us forward. After all, the only other possibility is that their infrastructure has completely collapsed and they've lost total interest in the game, which would make them and their allies wholly unsuited to steer a government as large and complex as this one. Surely that's not the case?

At any rate, I'm asking for your support once again. Electing those who have no experience will only jeopardize the Glorious Game we have begun to restore after all those years in the wilderness. Consider the totality of Atlasia at present, and then make your choice.

[John Dule]

In closing, I would just like to say that I don't believe in democracy, and if you support me, you should show solidarity by not voting in this election.

Democracy is a collectivist tool for the weak-willed. It is a layer of simplification that is used to mediate between the limitless complexities of the real world and the limited comprehension of the human mind. In doing this, it oversimplifies everything it attempts to solve. Nuanced issues are reduced to talking points. Varied opinions are reduced to a bipolar dichotomy. The supremely ordered natural world that we all inhabit is reduced to a structure of generalized laws and institutions. If you think that this is desirable, then you are incapable of looking at the awesome chaos of reality without the blinders of ideology. Only the truly worthy can accept the complexity of the world for what it is. Those who can't will always resort to overly simplistic modes of thinking, so as to not strain their flaccid minds.

51%. I want you to remember that number, for that is the true number of the beast. Democracy can only function based on the precondition that 51 = 100-- that if a slim majority wants something, it is somehow transmuted into "the will of the people," granting a mandate to the "winner." This is a lie. Democracy is merely a mechanism for forcing the will of the majority on the oppressed minority, whether that minority is racial, ethnic, religious, or ideological. Democracy is not the greatest good. It is not an inherent virtue. It is a utilitarian structure that is only as good as those who comprise it. The system we strive to create must be good regardless of context. If 51 or 66 or 75 or 99 percent of my fellow citizens are vicious Neo-Nazis, then I want to live under a system in which that does not affect me one iota. No system that can allow these types of people to exercise their will over others can possibly be called "moral."

Worse still, democracy functions to disperse responsibility and blame throughout the entire populace. Thus, when something goes wrong-- when an elected official commits a crime of heinous proportions, for example-- the individual feels no guilt in participating in this vile system. They assign the moral failing to the politician (even though they could very well have done the same thing, were they in the same position), and they ignore their own role in propping up democracy by lending it the legitimacy afforded to it by mass participation. Such is the great ill of collectivism-- without clear lines of responsibility and blame, decisions are made with no thought given to the consequences. Leaders are chosen based on who people would like to have a beer with. Wars are waged because the public reads biased headlines in newspaper articles. Voters are fickle, their minds easily warped, their opinions ill-conceived and weak.

If this sounds familiar-- if this is reprehensible to you-- then abstain from this election. Save your soul from the corrosion of mass opinion. The aggregate of many men does not average them out. Rather, it pollutes the best with the worst, and gives the worst undue benefits by piggybacking off of the best. The greatest inequality is to pretend that the unequal is equal. I have no patience for it. You shouldn't either.