Presidential Debate

[Napoleon]

Question for all candidates

I would like to hear your thoughts on ideology. What place does it have in Atlasia? Would you emphasize it? Is Atlasia boring without it? Compared to your opponents, how ideological are you? How would you describe your ideology, and from what principles is it derived?

p

Ideology is core to Atlasia. Most of our parties exist to advance an ideology. I am a Liberal, a pragmatic progressive. We all have our own set of values and I find no harm in working to those ends. Ideological factors will play a part in some of my decisions, just like any other President, but activity, competence and character are important too. Even as Senator or Governor I have had to make decisions that go against my ideological beliefs and I have no problem looking at the big picture to move Atlasia forward.

[Oakvale]

I think ideology is arguably the heart of the game- if we all agreed on everything, there'd be no debate, no political parties, and no elections, after all. While I generally dislike the simplistic labeling of political positions, I'm a fairly mainstream liberal - I'm to the left on some things, and more moderate on others, but core to my beliefs is that a - reasonably constrained - state can and should support the less fortunate in society. I am a believer in free trade and the free movement of goods and ideas, but I'm not a neoliberal - I believe the state can be a powerful tool, too-often abused to help build a better society for all.

Ideology can cause its share of problems in Atlasia, though - one thing that happens is that one side - normally the left given the political slant of the site - narrowly holds on to power by a consistent margin, which leads to the isolation of opposing viewpoints. I think it's important that Atlasia is inclusive - that the minority is respected, listened to, and, when they have the right idea, that we don't disregard it on blind partisanship.

Partisan politics and ideology are fundamentally intertwined, and are the heart of Atlasia - but we can have vigorous, even heated debate without resorting to the old party-line voting we saw before the dissolution, where the left consistently won elections by single vote margins.

As President, I will strive to include all Atlasians in the work of bringing in a new golden age of competitive elections, interesting debates, and active membership - the game is going through a lull now, yes, but I do truly believe that, if we play our cards right, Atlasia can bounce back stronger than ever. I'm not saying that if your ideas are contrary to my principles that I will adopt it for its own sake, but I can promise that under an Oakvale Presidency all views will be listened to, respected and taken into consideration.


I

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Another great question- the answer is because I am some one who values the debate and discussion above all else. I've seen some great Senate debates- for example between wormyguy and Scott... say what you want about either of these fellas but they had a very good debate about the mountaintop removal bill. We have a President right now who is a great guy and a great leader- he finds consensus and that is important in Washington or Canberra or Ottawa or London... not as much here considering what we do doesn't affect actual lives. I may compromise of course out of necessity, but not after doing the best to fight for my views.

Ask yourself- what will be more interesting- a President who agrees with most of us on most issues and governs that way? Or a President who will do some controversial sh**t every once in a while. If the Secretary of External Affairs tells me Iran has missiles in the silos, you can expect me to respond with military action to prevent the launch of those missiles... that will bring debate and discussion to the Senate and the game. When I put my budget forward- I am supporting Polnut's generally as is everybody, but mine would be coming from the right and will probably get some folks on the left a bit riled up- that will bring  debate and discussion to the Senate and the game. With both foreign and domestic issues- I have views which sometimes go against what the mainstream is on this board- and all the time we argue those issues in a way which leaves both sides with mutual respect and understanding...

That is what you can expect from a President Clarence

[Napoleon]

I don't think controversy for the sake of controversy is actually fun for this game. A Napoleon/Kalwejt administration will be interesting in many ways, I intend to bring more prominence to the VP position and the Cabinet first of all, by outlining some expectations and seeking to meet those goals. We will work to get our legislative agenda through the Senate. I think, if you observe my time in office and compare it to my opponents, I have always been much more interested in the legislative aspects of the game as opposed to the social aspects. Previously I posted the similarities and differences you could expect between myself and Polnut. I hope to establish some of his ideas as precedent and add my own as well. I can be trusted to be active and care about the office I serve in, an AWOL President isn't very interesting.

Here is a quote from former President Purple State, someone I have never interacted with. The quote is not about me, in fact it is about someone who would have a presidency that would likely be very different from my own. However what is said here is something I bring to the table that I haven't seen my opponents offer.

 

I joined Marokai's bid for the presidency because I believe he can make that activity infectious, spreading it throughout the reaches of the game, while sustaining and building on those earlier reforms.

Now if you compare my time in the Senate to my opponents, I don't think there is any doubt that my two terms were more interesting, productive and noteworthy.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

Another question: What is the outline your plan for immigration? Do you plan to make any changes? Are you satisfied with the status quo? What role, if any, should regional governments play?

(If anyone else asks a question, please hold your answer and let them hear from you first.)

I essentially support the DREAM Act from what I have read about it- or maybe it is the Rubio Plan... I am not sure what the differences are to be frank. If a person came here as a child and has remained crime-free and either received an education, held constant work, or served in the military- that person ought to be allowed to stay in the country. It would be inhumane, illogical, and impractical to deport them...
If those circumstances are not met, however- I would favor deportation. I believe that itself is practical due to the fact that most immigrants are here to chase the American Dream and know that to do so requires hard work and sound character. As far as regions- I would clearly value the opinions of the Pacific Region and my Imperial Dominion of the South as we are the regions mostly affected by illegal immigration... I know for a fact that much of the agriculture in the Florida Heartland relies on migrant workers- mostly illegal. Ask Minute Maid if they'd like to deport any illegal worker we find- you want the price of your Florida orange juice to double???

In short- my immigration policy would be based on practicality, common sense, and compassion... the aspect of my country I am most proud of is the fact that on our most precious monument- the Statue of Liberty- the words inscribed are as follows...

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I will stand up always and fight for that to be our creed... if you are here and work hard and play by the rules, I welcome you

[Oakvale]

In response to Governor Nix's second-to-last question - well, first of all, I certainly agree with Governor Napoleon that controversy for its own sake is ultimately detrimental to the game - while drama, personal and otherwise can be entertaining from a third party perspective and I can honestly say from experience that it rapidly becomes tiring and makes the game a lot less fun for those involved in it.

I also want to be careful not to slight my opponents when answering this question - I have little doubt that all would be active and engaged as President.

If Cincinnatus and I are fortunate enough to be elected, upon taking office we plan to engage with all the Senate - or, at least those that are willing to work with us - and try to pass a legislative agenda while listening to input and ideas from our ideological opponents. I don't expect this to be easy - we support, for example, federal economic stimulus spending on infrastructure, and a progressive graduate tax system for college fees, and other ideas that may not be palatable to the more right-leaning members of the Senate. But I think in having those debates, and those fights, we can make Atlasia are more interesting, and inclusive place - I have no interest in attempting to crudely steamroll my agenda through an unresponsive Senate. That path leads to gridlock and apathy.

Throughout my time, I've seen Presidents come and go, and the one thing I've learned from great Presidents like Purple State, Tmth and Polnut, is that the key to a successful, active and, yes, above all interesting Presidency is not dogmatically trying to impose your agenda on the nation, but in suggesting ideas, listening, and, when need be compromising.

When the President appears unresponsive or inconsiderate of popular or congressional opinion, people feel increasingly isolated from the Presidency, and it becomes a distant, almost irrelevant office. That's something I am set on avoiding.

We can't reach a compromise on everything, nor should we, and we certainly can't reach consensus on everything - the game would be incredibly boring if we did! But an Atlasia where instead of bitter, partisan divides we have a civilized debate on where we want to as a nation, is, I believe, the best way to ensure an engaged and active administration.

[© tweed]

I support the right of every internet user to migrate to uselectionatlas.org.

[© tweed]

this question is from the Right Honourable Young Tweed.  he asks: how do you envision the role and power of the ever-dormant Supreme Court going forward?

[Oakvale]

I support the right of every internet user to migrate to uselectionatlas.org.

^ I support this. Dave Leip's US Election Atlas should have open borders. As for the "in-character" stuff...

Another question: What is the outline your plan for immigration? Do you plan to make any changes? Are you satisfied with the status quo? What role, if any, should regional governments play?

(If anyone else asks a question, please hold your answer and let them hear from you first.)

I certainly think that an equivalent to the fictional country of the "United States"' DREAM Act is a no-brainer as far as immigration goes - deporting kids who are, for all intents and purposes, Atlasians based on what's effectively a legal technicality is downright barbaric.

There's a strain of thought that thinks of illegal immigrants as criminals - nothing more - who should be arrested and deported immediately, and good riddance. I can understand that attitude on some level - obviously we can't have open borders, and we shouldn't simply ignore illegal immigration - it is a problem. But any realistic immigration policy has to be limited - mass deportations are a clumsy, crude and inhumane excuse for a solution - and, first and foremost, compassionate.

Illegal immigrants are, in the vast majority, not hardened criminals. They're just people trying to make a better life for themselves in Atlasia. We can't turn a blind eye to illegal immigration, but the just thing to do is to provide those illegal immigrants who work hard and don't have a criminal record with a path to citizenship. The alternative is to cruelly break apart families - children from parents and husbands from wives. That's not something we should be doing, and as President I'll strive to reach a compassionate, sensible solution to give our illegal immigrants a way to become full citizens of the nation they love.

[angus]

...preventing massacres is a mission which is a core value of our nation
...
A full scale invasion or occupation would be out of the question...

Seems a bit contradictory.  If you're going to a gunfight, you don't bring a knife.  Either we're in with the rebels, or we're in with Doctor Assad, or we're not in it at all.  Those are the only three choices.  You can't really pick any other, can you?  I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong here, but you can't have it both ways.  If you're going to support Dr. Assad's overthrow with your voice, then back it up with policy and funding.  Otherwise, step out of the kitchen. 

I guess my own inclination is that we should step out, but if you can make a convincing economic argument that we should involve ourselves, then do it.  But whatever you do, don't be like Bush's daddy and encourage the rebels, only to give them just enough rope to hang themselves while they're waiting for American support. 

On another topic, the DREAM act, I'm with you. 

One thing to keep in mind is that these atlasia elections often stray to imagined, forum-related policies.  Things like the DREAM act and Syria, as important as they are to the Romney-Obama debates, don't sway voters in these elections.  Nevertheless, since you brought the issue up, I'd like to hear how you would limit us to fly-over mission against the Assad regime, and even if that fails, how you save face in the international community when that fails to unseat him.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

...preventing massacres is a mission which is a core value of our nation
...
A full scale invasion or occupation would be out of the question...

Seems a bit contradictory.  If you're going to a gunfight, you don't bring a knife.  Either we're in with the rebels, or we're in with Doctor Assad, or we're not in it at all.  Those are the only three choices.  You can't really pick any other, can you?  I'm not saying there's a right or a wrong here, but you can't have it both ways.  If you're going to support Dr. Assad's overthrow with your voice, then back it up with policy and funding.  Otherwise, step out of the kitchen. 

I guess my own inclination is that we should step out, but if you can make a convincing economic argument that we should involve ourselves, then do it.  But whatever you do, don't be like Bush's daddy and encourage the rebels, only to give them just enough rope to hang themselves while they're waiting for American support. 

On another topic, the DREAM act, I'm with you. 

One thing to keep in mind is that these atlasia elections often stray to imagined, forum-related policies.  Things like the DREAM act and Syria, as important as they are to the Romney-Obama debates, don't sway voters in these elections.  Nevertheless, since you brought the issue up, I'd like to hear how you would limit us to fly-over mission against the Assad regime, and even if that fails, how you save face in the international community when that fails to unseat him.

Thank you, angus- I am always glad to discuss

I believe the mistakes that have been made in our nation's recent wars- going back to my war in Vietnam- is that we have insisted on nationbuilding rather then allowing a people to build their own nation. If we were to invade Syria- beyond sending special operators in there such as Army Special Forces (Green Berets) to train rebel forces- it would lead to nation building.... which would result in our troops dying to enforce tolls on roads, or to enforce drug policy, or other domestic Syrian issues.

My view is that the Syrian people must forge their own way ahead- but that requires an even playing field. I am not very familiar with the situation on the ground in Syria, but from what I've gathered- Assad's forces are far more advanced in training and technology. I believe- as John McCain does- that air strikes could serve to create safe zones in which the rebel leaders could organize and plan their offensives and administrate the areas under their control. I would also potentially authorize air strikes to hit infantry and artillery which appeared prepared to commit a massacre... for example a battalion advancing on an unprotected rebel town. By staying off the ground but authorizing these air strikes- we stay out of the nation building and allow the Syrian rebels to fight THEIR civil war and by evening the playing field- they will actually have a chance

As for the international community- it would be essential that we have their cooperation as we did with Libya. The French and British, as well as Russians and Arab nations, have great interest in the Middle East and this conflict...their involvement and participation would be crucial. However- as I mentioned, I believe it is far too early and we know far too little to make a decision about the use of force at this time. I also believe strongly in the rising practice of drone warfare- I would rather have a USAF 2LT piloting an aircraft from a Las Vegas control center then in the cockpit over Damascus...

[Napoleon]

I would like to allow for more immigration. But too often the debate is over who we should or should not allow. I do not believe we should discriminate by wealth or nationality. Criminal records are the only roadblock I believe should be put up for potential immigrants.

Now, what we need to do is help immigrants integrate. I believe that by offering free English courses, immigrants will be better suited to find jobs and help their kids do their schoolwork and participate more in mainstream Atlasia.
Don't underestimate the difficulties children of immigrants face because of their parents' language barrier.

[CLARENCE 2015!]

In the Netherlands- there is a very comprehensive program to become a citizen. It is fairly easy I believe to become a permanent resident- but our local guide's husband was working to become a citizen and has to attend courses every weekend. He had to learn Dutch conversationally, had to learn the customs (such as shaking a woman's hand, which may not be culturally natural for a devout Muslim), Dutch history. I found this very interesting and may be an idea to consider

[ZuWo]

I have a question for Tweed.

You have been consistent in your criticism of Atlasians who take real policy issues way too seriously. That's a fair point since nothing we debate here has an impact on anyone's life. So what is your motivation to become President? What would you do as President if you don't want to focus on policy issues?

[© tweed]

most of my platform, insofar as it exists, can be found in my HQ thread.  the first video the most important.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149595.0


I'll try to summarize some crucial points.


-"anti-meritocratic": a game about personalities rather than "getting things done is what we do".  uselectionatlas.org is not the real world, nor should it try to be.  in fact it thrives as an escape from the real world, a safe little world-within-a-world for young middle-class, mostly white males with similar interests to dick around and rise to the top of a social structure.

-try to set the rules to force a return to the two-party system.  end preferential voting.  any soldier who was around in 2004 will tell you that it was better.

-cut the among of 'public sector jobs' ie offices.  way too crazy with regions having like 8 offices now.  so stupid.  an office should be a treasure, not a low-hanging, overly-ripe fruit.

-commission a sort of 'Atlasia State University' to study the history and culture of the website.  the wiki is a nice idea but is out of date

-here's a good little thing https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149595.msg3244223#msg3244223



more to the point of your question, we have a whole message board devoted to the debate of 'real' issues.  no need to bleed that in to feed delusions of grandeur in which we're real-world politicians

[Incipimus iterum]

I have a Question for the candidates, Do you Support a Balanced Budget Amendment and  what Spending will you cut or what taxes will you raise to balance the budget

[CLARENCE 2015!]

I have a Question for the candidates, Do you Support a Balanced Budget Amendment and  what Spending will you cut or what taxes will you raise to balance the budget

Yes, I do- thank you for the question. The reason I support this amendment is because of the stalemate we have now... everyone has priorities. I won't favor significant cuts in defense spending; Napoleon, Oakvale, and Tweed have their priorities as well. For too long- this has led to everyone's priorities being maintained and increased year after year after year... Very simply- The federal government must play by the same rules governing every household's finances. I just returned from a trip to Europe- therefore, I am trying to eat at home more, drive less therefore use less gas, and make fewer unnecessary purchases. Families have to make these decisions constantly...

A balanced budget amendment will FINALLY force us to come to the table and work these out. Progress is being made even without an amendment- Polnut's budget in many ways is a step forward and I support it generally. I especially appreciate the financial commitment to veterans. As far as what I would cut- it would be items I deemed unneessary (or less necessary) and also out of the realm of the federal govt... looking at this budget I could say now I would look at cutting-

national broadcaster (and eliminating the levy along with it), cutting Afghanistan operations, Go Green Fund, work to find methods to cut health care (which has had a very productive debate in the Senate)...

As far as taxes- I believe a national sales tax (the fair tax essentially) is more effective as it measures consumption rather then income, but my priority would be to first decrease the spending as our national debt is also a national security problem, I believe.

[Napoleon]

I have a Question for the candidates, Do you Support a Balanced Budget Amendment and  what Spending will you cut or what taxes will you raise to balance the budget

Deficit reduction is a priority of mine; I would like to see the budget balanced. Eventually we will fruits a surplus to eliminate our debt. However I cannot support cuts to crucial programs assisting vulnerable Atlasians. I would like to eventually bring us to a point where can lower income taxes, even if it requires new forms of taxation. The fact of the matter is the current system allows many who can afford to pay more to go untaxed while leaving the bulk of the burden on the backs of the middle class, and that is unacceptable.

[© tweed]

Here's a question for Tweed, if he'll take it.

Is Atlasia really the best setting for the project that you describe? And why must pursuing your project involve abandoning aspects of the game that other participants enjoy?

it is certainly the best setting within the website, as it is the community's own organized structure.  as for the latter part, that's up to them.

[© tweed]

I have a Question for the candidates, Do you Support a Balanced Budget Amendment and  what Spending will you cut or what taxes will you raise to balance the budget

I support current membership prices and pay-for-click advertisements on the website.  I do not support an audit of Dave Leip's finances.

[© tweed]

I have a question for Tweed.

You have been consistent in your criticism of Atlasians who take real policy issues way too seriously. That's a fair point since nothing we debate here has an impact on anyone's life. So what is your motivation to become President? What would you do as President if you don't want to focus on policy issues?

oh and my main motivation is glorification of my massive ego.

[Oakvale]

I have a Question for the candidates, Do you Support a Balanced Budget Amendment and  what Spending will you cut or what taxes will you raise to balance the budget

As I said earlier, I think gradual reductions in spending - in certain areas - and, if necessary, gradual increases in revenues is the sensible path to a balanced budget. Cutting too much too quickly, especially from programs that are essential to helping those less fortunate, would inflict a form of violent trauma on not just the people but the economy as a whole. I'm fairly traditional on this - in an economic crisis, you have to spend to keep the economy afloat; when times are good you can cut back and work on the deficit issue.

I would not back a Balanced Budget Amendment.

[Fritz]

-try to set the rules to force a return to the two-party system.  end preferential voting.  any soldier who was around in 2004 will tell you that it was better.

Tweed, I find this position a little confusing, given that your running mate was the driving force behind the demolition of the two-party system we had in place some months ago.  How do you reconcile this?

[© tweed]

-try to set the rules to force a return to the two-party system.  end preferential voting.  any soldier who was around in 2004 will tell you that it was better.

Tweed, I find this position a little confusing, given that your running mate was the driving force behind the demolition of the two-party system we had in place some months ago.  How do you reconcile this?

I am totally ignorant of nearly all post-2004 Atlasian history.  once I commission my University this will no longer be the case.