Presidential Debate Debating Thread

[thumb21]

February 2019 Presidential Debate

Hello and welcome to the Presidential Debate for the upcoming elections starting on the 15th of February! This debate will consist of 3 rounds: Opening statements, questions and then rebuttals and closing statements.

Please welcome the candidates:
Former Vice President MB298
Governor Tmthforu94
Vice President YE

Candidates, you have 24 hours to make your opening statements and answer the starter questions below!

Economic Policy:
> What would your administration's trade policy look like?

Social Policy:
> What would be your administration's policies on immigration?

Game Issues:
> What is your view on how the relationship between regional and federal government should work?

(Voters, please don't forget to send me any questions you have for the candidates)

Note: Only the candidates can write here. If you want to comment, the commentary thread is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=313249.msg6662810#msg6662810

[Dr. MB]

Thank you. I look forward to serving as premier.

What would your administration's trade policy look like?

Simple. We will refuse trade with any nation that doesn't abide by true anti-revisionist Marxism-Leninism. As it stands, that means we will end all foreign trade.

What would be your administration's policies on immigration?
All are welcome to immigrate, as they should be considered refugees from capitalism. My administration will grant amnesty to everyone who wants it.

What is your view on how the relationship between regional and federal government should work?
The regional governments should not exist. Neither should the "federal" government. The only true government is a unitary government under one leader.

[Dr. MB]

I wonder who are the members of the Hoxhaist Politburo, who will apparently replace Congress according to the platform.

The Politburo members will be appointed after the election.

[tmthforu94]

Candidate Tmth at the Presidential Debate

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Absolutely. Sorry if it goes against debate protocol to answer this question early, but I think we’ve fallen behind in the Space Race and unsure if anything has actually been done in Atlasia to promote it. There is so much to learn from studying the galaxy that can boost our scientific advancements here on Earth. In terms of Atlasia, one item I’d look at is including responsibilities for NASA within a cabinet position, likely the Secretary of Internal Affairs. I think we need to relook at the Mars Exploration Project and increase funding so that this can be continued and expedited. I can’t give a timetable - I'd need to have more discussions with NASA leaders, but I want Atlasia to be the first country that puts someone on Mars. [/quote]

[YE]

First off, thank you thumb for moderating this debate and for being willing to take on the position as debate moderator. Thank you tmth and MB for participating in this debate so I wouldn't be here spending 2 hours talking to myself.

Two months ago, I accepted the offer to be Sestak's running mate, largely because I saw a unique challenge and situation to the game was in. Since June 2016, or since the reset, until last October, the Federalists have dominated the game at the presidential level. Yet last October, Labor came back with a vengeance, but the problem was it did so quickly that it had little active player base, and the ones that were active, like Sestak, were overwhelmed with trying to fill so many voids, and in Sestak's case, such basically forced him to exit the game. Since the I think some strides have been made in the player base category (which is why this Congress has been slightly more functional than the previous), and I also thought, given my record of historic activity in Fremont, I could be a valuable asset to the ticket and prospective administration. Following Sestak's departure from the game, a void was open that needed to be filled, and I felt, based on my executive tenure, that I was the best option moving forward. This election represents a unique opportunity for the game. Are we going to go back to Federalist rule with potentially a right wing government or are we going to go forward with a progressive and active government that encourages participation?

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For far too long, large mega corporations have rallied for free trade deals by shoving the notion that protectionism is bad economics, which is true but invoking full on protectionism in that case is a strawman as it provides a false choice, and that free trade is needed as it's supposedly the way of the future, and that anyone who opposes such. In theory, that's not wrong per se, but again, that brings up a false choice. I oppose CAFTA, NAFTA, permanent normal trade relations with China,
but at the same time, I support the WTO and think free trade in higher wager country. I also think pulling out of NATO would be a grave mistake. Nevertheless, I vigorously oppose free trade agreements, and as president, I will make that extremely clear to my cabinet, that I oppose free trade deals in which the sole motivate behind proponents is to increase profit margins and drive down wages by shipping jobs to 3rd world banana republics with records of human rights abuses. All that does is pollute our environment since said countries often have lax environmental standards while leaving our manufacturing base in Lincoln economic displaced, which has both short and long-term consequences, and create a race to the bottom. We need to drive wages up, not down.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Before I directly answer the question, I find my opponent's answer to be very vapid here. He is often, and has good reason to do so, rallied against the effort of the present administration. However, what he said seems right from the same cloth from the past administration, as similar to the Consistency in Immigration Act that was initially brought on to the House floor along with the botched single payer health care plan, it seemed to have little understanding of Atlasian existing law. "Comprehensive immigration reform" in reality is an empty platitude that sounds nice, but we already had that when thanks to the efforts of Peace Party founder Siren,  who while in the Senate, helped pass the Come Out of the Shadows Act. Furthermore, my opponent mentioned no specifics on how he'd improve on that aside from the standard legal immigration is good and family separation is bad. I mean, it's pretty obvious why the second is bad, though not explicitly the same thing, given there was a bill that all 3 House Federalist supported that would have ended birthright citizenship, I can say I'm skeptical that his own party is in agreement with that stance. As for legal immigration, it really depends. What kind of skill do the immigrants have? The last thing we need is a surge in low skill immigrants who are wiling to work for less, which just increase profit margins of the elite and wreck collective bargaining power for the common man, and as I referenced in the previous question, we can not encourage in a race to the bottom. This sort of ties into my direct answer to the question, actually.

As president, I will push for a decrease in H-2A and H-2B visas, while maintaining higher skilled H-1B visas, along with increased sanctions on employers who hire illegal workers. Both of these moves will protect our workers from exploitation. I'd be open, pending reports to how effective our current border security is, to increasing the funding allocated towards border security. I will note, however, that I oppose using eminent domain to construct a border wall, and I think a push to end birthright citizenship is rooted in xenophobia that I denounce and in the end, does not fix the illegal immigration problem.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fundamentally, and I said this before on the campaign trail in one of my Fremont races, I believe in shared responsibilities. The regions should have some power on domestic affairs, particularly in how it pertains to infrastructure projects, but that doesn't mean, the federal government should have no control over the regions whatsoever. Atlascare is a good example of how it should function, for instance. It gives the regions control over who goes on the exchange, but at the same time, the federal government establishes a framework that prevents thousands for dying each year due to lack of health coverage. I do believe, and this is something the past few administrations haven't done, that more effort should be made on behalf of the administration to recruit new players, both as zombie voters and to run for office. Unlike my opponent, I don't feel we need to create another department to do this, which would just create another excessive office that may or may last beyond his tenure. Rather, I intend to use the Game Reform Council to pursue zombies and candidate recruitment, and work with executives of the three regions and perhaps chairs of major political parties who are currently generally responsible, although less so on the Federalist side, for such outreach, when legislative vacancies occur.

Somewhat related, and this more or less will tie back in with the election as I'll explain later, but I also want to touch on something that I don't think gets pointed out nearly enough. As pointed out by many Federalists, including Governor TMTH and Senator Yankee, Lincoln has had a bit of an activity problem. However, no one seems to understand how we got there, and why it's floundered while both my and TMTH's regions have prospered. Simply put, both political parties started ignoring it. The Federalist seemed to make no substantive effort to recruit candidates, and the departure of Wells and Madigan, depleted the regions bench back in August. Ninja getting booted out later that month forced a longtime legislature into the fold, and in October, another legislature in Zaybay was elected to the Senate. A few candidates were recruited by Labor to fill the void, but they were recalled after doing basically nothing without thinking more deeply as to why they did nothing, and to be fair, this did not occur to me until recently. They did nothing because there was no leadership to teach them the basic ins and outs of the legislature; one can not expect three freshman legislatures to dive into Atlasia without knowing how to play. As president, I will do everything I can to avoid the mistake of letting a regional legislature fall off a cliff; I'll even be willing to help said legislature that region learn the ropes if needed. While this issue doesn't affect Governor TMTH directly, the presidency to a large extent drains depth of the in power party, and I have reservations that the Federalist would be more likely to improve the situation in the region if TMTH is elected.

[YE]

Note: this was suppose to be my opening statement but the forum crashed for me hours ago and I had to re-type it. Somehow it magically re-appeared in my phone just now so here it is. Two opening statements are better than one.

First off thank you to thumb for moderating this debate and for serving in the cabinet as a debate moderator as a whole. And thank you tmth and MB for taking part in this debate. Two months ago, I accepted the offer from Sestak to be VP because I saw Atlasia as a nation be at a unique time in our history. The end of Federalist control of the Presidency ended in October with an unexpected Labor victory but in many ways, Labor, while favoring good policy, built itself too quickly, which result in a lack of a left wing player base that that had unintended consequences. In addition to a far less than stellar activity record from the Presidency, others, most notably Sestak, were basically overloaded to the point where they became too emotionally invested and had to step aside. As a result, I saw a non-traditional opportunity to, based on my tenure of reviving Fremont and twice smashing activity records, offer my services while at the same time, being the incumbent party of an inactive administration. Of course, Sestak’s overload basically led to his demise from the game, at least for the time being, and as a result, I realized the need to fill his void and run for president myself.

[thumb21]

Thank you for your opening statements, candidates! We will now move on to round two of the debate!

Candidates, you have 48 hours to answer the following questions!

Economic Policy:
> From Pericles: What will be your approach regarding tax policy?
> What policy proposals do you have to create more jobs and generate economic growth?
> What will be your administration's approach to healthcare policy?

Social Issues:
> How will your administration approach foreign policy?
> From Matthew27: Do you support space exploration and what are your plans for advancing Atlasia in space?
> From Poirot: Are you willing to ban telecom equipment made by a Chinese foreign company that poses a cybersecurity risk?
> From AustralianSwingVoter: What are the candidate's views on abortion and LGBTQ+ equality?

Game/Other Policy:
> All three tickets are multi-party tickets. If elected, how will you involve your Vice President in your administration?
> From Pericles: What is your view regarding a parliamentary system for Atlasia?
> From AustralianSwingVoter: How will your administration handle Discord?

Individual Questions:
To MB298: Some would consider your run for the presidency to be a joke, especially since you've only just resigned the vice presidency as a member of a party which you now claim should be banned for being "revisionist." How can people trust that your campaign is serious?
To Tmthforu94: You spoke about the national debt in your answer on immigration. The deficit has remained very high after a long period of Federalist control of the presidency. Why should Atlasians trust you on the deficit and how will you reduce the deficit while causing minimum damage?
To YE: Both you and Jimmy7812 have criticized President Weatherboy for his levels of activities, yet you both hold important positions in his administration. How can Atlasians trust that you will lead an active administration?

Thank you to Pericles, Matthew27, Poirot and AustralianSwingVoter for your questions!

Note: Only the candidates can write here. If you want to comment, the commentary thread is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=313249.msg6662810#msg6662810

[Dr. MB]

Economic Policy:
> From Pericles: What will be your approach regarding tax policy?

Under my tax plan, everybody will pay the same percentage in taxes, as everybody will be making the same income by the beginning of next year.

> What policy proposals do you have to create more jobs and generate economic growth?

One key plank of my campaign platform is the construction of over 100 million bunkers; these will allow for huge investments in security and create thousands, if not millions, of jobs.

> What will be your administration's approach to healthcare policy?

Despite all the criticism I have of the current government, I have to say our healthcare policy is a good one and I won't try to change that.

Social Issues:
> How will your administration approach foreign policy?

We'll take an isolationist approach, with international interactions only when absolutely necessary.

> From Matthew27: Do you support space exploration and what are your plans for advancing Atlasia in space?

No. Investments should be in defending from space invasions, not spiking imperialist conquests of land that isn't ours.

> From Poirot: Are you willing to ban telecom equipment made by a Chinese foreign company that poses a cybersecurity risk?

Yes.

> From AustralianSwingVoter: What are the candidate's views on abortion and LGBTQ+ equality?

Abortion should only be legal when the state says one is necessary.

I believe that bisexuality is the highest evolutionary state, so, under my administration I'll introduce an executive order requiring everyone to identify as bisexual.

Game/Other Policy:
> All three tickets are multi-party tickets. If elected, how will you involve your Vice President in your administration?

Koopa will be a great VP and will be very involved in promoting our revolutionary cause.

> From Pericles: What is your view regarding a parliamentary system for Atlasia?

Parliaments are revisionist; only a supreme soviet of the workers shall be allowed.

> From AustralianSwingVoter: How will your administration handle Discord?

Discord will be the main staging point for my administration's actions, and I'll be very involved in it.

Individual Questions:
To MB298: Some would consider your run for the presidency to be a joke, especially since you've only just resigned the vice presidency as a member of a party which you now claim should be banned for being "revisionist." How can people trust that your campaign is serious?

Listen: I can't really convince people my campaign isn't a joke. That's a decision for them to make. If they think that, well, good for them, I'm confident though that this is a serious campaign and enough people will recognize that to elect me premier.

[tmthforu94]

Candidate Tmth at the Presidential Debate

Lots of topics being discussed here! In the interest of time and not forcing readers to spend 2 hours reading responses, I will keep my answers relatively brief, but happy to provide clarification or go more in-depth if there are any questions!

First, as a rebuttal to the second paragraph of YE’s jumbled response on regional government, I just wanted to state this: Lincoln has certainly had its issues in the past year, but the Philadelphia Plan that has been proposed is a great start, and evidenced by their competitive elections currently ongoing, I think the future for Lincoln (all regions, for that matter) is very bright. Regionalism has been a cornerstone of my entire career in Atlasia and I’ll advocate for stronger regions each day that I am your president.

Unlike my opponent, I don't feel we need to create another department to do this, which would just create another excessive office that may or may last beyond his tenure.

I also hope that he can clarify what he meant here. I never said I would be creating another department or additional officeholders, in fact, my cabinet would be smaller than the current one because I would do away with the Deputy Chief of Staff and Press Secretary – I might not even have a Chief of Staff. The Executive Council would simply be a server for the four executive leaders to be able to communicate with each other because I think there has been a lack of communication between federal and regional leaders for quite a while.

What you’ve seen so far in this debate is contrasting visions: I’ve offered positive solutions and have an optimistic future for this game. YE offers criticism and after delay, used much of his responses as a rebuttal to my answers instead of formulating his own. And while I disagree with his overall vision, MB has also given us a clearer picture of what his administration will look like than YE has so far.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[YE]

First, as a rebuttal to the second paragraph of YE’s jumbled response on regional government, I just wanted to state this: Lincoln has certainly had its issues in the past year, but the Philadelphia Plan that has been proposed is a great start, and evidenced by their competitive elections currently ongoing, I think the future for Lincoln (all regions, for that matter) is very bright. Regionalism has been a cornerstone of my entire career in Atlasia and I’ll advocate for stronger regions each day that I am your president.

Unlike my opponent, I don't feel we need to create another department to do this, which would just create another excessive office that may or may last beyond his tenure.

I also hope that he can clarify what he meant here. I never said I would be creating another department or additional officeholders, in fact, my cabinet would be smaller than the current one because I would do away with the Deputy Chief of Staff and Press Secretary – I might not even have a Chief of Staff. The Executive Council would simply be a server for the four executive leaders to be able to communicate with each other because I think there has been a lack of communication between federal and regional leaders for quite a while.

Let me rebutt this first before answering the questions.

To be honest, my comment on Lincoln hasn't aged well, given that as you mentioned, there are competitive elections ongoing there, and that is good for the game.

Yes, when I meant another department above, I meant the executive council but to be fair, you did say you would do away another position. As for the overall lack of communication, I don't really disagree. Yankee while president via his Chief of Staff did make some effort to reach out to me to hold a meeting of sorts, but that never got off the ground, perhaps due to Hurricane Florence. Otherwise, until accepting the VP slot, my PM box was largely empty from other executive leaders as FM. I will say since taking the VP lot, there's been some improvement. As Vice President, Scott was asked to come on board the NSC when the Alaska Crisis hit in hopes of trying to rectify the situation, and given together, Scott and I worked on a bill to provide funding for the national guard that was passed on an emergency rules suspension, which I should note Lumine is proposing to make it so that such emergency bill would almost certainty take longer to pass, I'd say there's been marginal improvement since I became VP. However, that is not anywhere near enough. As President, I would like to see either an executive or legislative leader from each region's government on the game reform council, a council that is heavily underutilized right now, in which in game problems, such as errors in legislation and different interpretations of election law, can be rectified, and ideas of people in similar positions can be shared. In terms of implementing my Atlas Deal, regional communication through that council will be key because some sort of money will likely be allocated to the regions in my plan. Furthermore, thecouncil would also be used to respond legislatively to the GM stories, like what I, with the help of Scott, did in response to the polio outbreak in Portland.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My approach to tax policy is likely to be different from my political opponent. I do not adhere to trickle down economics and am strongly opposed to tax cuts that strengthen the billionaire class to the point at the expense of blowing up the deficit. I will raise revenues by increasing corporate, income, and capital gain taxes in order to fund the AtlasDeal that I have made center to my campaign. Considering the number of revenue bills we have, I support the proposal on the floor of the Senate to raise the top marginal tax rate to 58%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again I reject the framing of the question a bit, since economic growth means very little if the Koch brothers are the ones benefiting from it and not the common man. I also reject the idea, that one could argue is implied in the framing, that creating jobs is always good. That kind of depends on where the jobs are going. Are they being employed by illegal alliens or are they being created in China? Or are they high skill, high paying jobs in Silicon Valley?

With that in mind, I think I understand the intent of the question even if I wasn’t a fan of how it was phrased. If elected, my main economic focus will be on an AtlasDeal that promises a series of infrastructure related bills that range from improving bridges and railways to improve water access to desert conditions. This in turn not only directly creates jobs, it attracts private sector job growth since businesses want to invest in areas of 21st century infrastructure. In order to promote consumer investment, I support efforts to expand the welfare state by raising the minimum wage and making child care universal and expanded paid vacation time by law, a measure currently being debated in Congress. This in turn would free up money for leisure activities that in turn creates more jobs.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I support AtlasCare but at this point, thanks to the framework AtlasCare created, is largely a regional issue. I do not think blindly replacing it with single payer health care is the answer. I would be interested in seeking information in how much more affordable our health system is now compared to pre-AtlasCare, however, just to make sure our system is not in shambles like it was pre-AtlasCare.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My administration's purpose will be to maintain direct peace against us or our allies. Unilateral military action, unless acting in self defense, goes against international law, and in the long run has unintended consequences that often result in destabilizing countries, if not regions and worsen our credibility abroad as the world's police and nation builders. I do not support military intervention in Venezuela. However, I am open to sanctions, but if and only if there is strong agreement among other nations in the region, that sanctions are indeed necessary. I am glad that the conflict on the Korean Peninsula is over and would engage in diplomacy in pertains to China. I do not wish to escalate tensions with the nation, unless they pose an imminent danger to us or any of our Allies. A war with China is the last thing we need after all. In regards to the Middle East, I am weary of further military escalation that is unlikely to stabilize the region long term, and if anything, would just worsen the situation further by creating a power vacuum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I do support NASA and am for exploration into space, not just for the sake of going into space, but for the purposes of getting a better understanding of the environment surrounding Earth. I support increasing funding for such. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, provided there is some sort of evidence that said foreign company poses such risk.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am generally pro-life, more so later in fetal development, and with an exception if the life of the mother is in danger. However, I recognize that this largely a regional issue and should remain that way if I'm elected.

There also seems to be strong agreement between both parties in regards to LGBTQ issues. Both parties supported Evergreen-Tmthforu, which was passed when Leinad was president. I oppose discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and am vigorously opposed to shams like gay conversion therapy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

First and foremost, the primary function of the Vice President will be to ensure Congress, in conjunction with whoever ends up PPT and Speaker, is rolling smoothly. Aide from that, he will be tasked with making sure the day to day operations are being run efficiently, and given his experience being part of many political parties, to help negotiate legislation with the opposition party and select administration officials.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have reservations about it, I support bicameralism because it provides adequate power to regional representation while also factoring in the will of the majority. I feel a move to a parliamentary system, pending details, could undue that balance. In addition, I am skeptical that having such a large legislative body would increase activity and feel the legislative chamber could be increasingly difficult to manage, especially during final votes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've summed up my thoughts on Discord use earlier and I will quotemyself on this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will like to add clarity to an attack my opponent has charged on me. He has claimed that the current  administration has a channel solely devoted to bashing the opposition, which is somewhat of a stretch. There is a channel in which strategy, and on occasion, conversations there have spilled into other rooms, is discussed but that has died off after the presidential race heated up said strategy seems largely focused on my campaign server now, and if elected, I plan to leave it there. Only officials will be allowed on my servers, regardless on whether they were political supporters of my campaigns. He also has implied that because I was appointed vice president recently, I am only talk on this issue. That seems like a stretch because I was never in a position to control said server. I do not own the server and was only given power to modify roles when appointed VP. By that time, strategy discussions had primarily moved elsewhere.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They can trust me based on my record of activity that contrasts with the present White House. To quote myself from earlier in the campaign,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[thumb21]

Candidates, you have 48 hours to carry out the following tasks!

Task 1 - Follow-up questions:
The candidates are encouraged to answer their follow-up question:
> To MB298: In your answer on jobs and the economy, you said you would construct 100 million bunkers. What would be the use of these bunkers and how will they be paid for?
> To Tmthforu94: In your answer on the deficit, you said that some tough cuts will have to be made. Could you expand on this? Which areas should be cut?
> To YE: In your answer on taxes, you said you wanted to increase the top marginal income tax rate to 58%. You also said you wanted to increase corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. Could you expand on your tax proposals and how would you ensure they can fund your AtlasDeal proposals?

> From Mr. Reactionary: What are the candidates positions on regulations for privately owned drones?
> From Tack50 to MB298: Most of your proposals are unconstitutional, or even if they are constitutional, probably won't be passed by Congress. How will you deal with that?

Task 2 - Rebuttals:
The candidates can respond to their opponent's arguments and are encouraged to discuss back and forth as much as they want.

Task 3 - Closing statements:
The candidates are encouraged to make their closing statements.

Note: Only the candidates can write here. If you want to comment, the commentary thread is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=313249.msg6662810#msg6662810

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's hard to say until we get the full budget numbers. The GM's office is working hard on this and I know they have some audit recommendations on departments that can be scaled back, but I don't think it is responsible to talk too specifically until we have the numbers in front of us. Since we are scaling back our military efforts I would imagine there are some cutbacks there that can be made.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm certainly supportive of private drone usage, one of the great technological advancements of our time. I guess my main priority would just be ensuring that the privacy of others are protected - for example, you shouldn't be able to use a drone to fly over someone else's house and spy on them. This would be a good task for my Attorney General to work on - determine what privacy protections are currently in place in this regard. I'm sure you already probably already have some information on the topic that would be helpful!


Rebuttals

I am hopeful that we can have a spirited back and forth today, then will plan to give my closing remarks this evening. Here are my rebuttal and questions for the other candidates:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you plan to ensure your plan can be fully funded and is realistic?[/quote]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I will like to add clarity to an attack my opponent has charged on me. He has claimed that the current  administration has a channel solely devoted to bashing the opposition, which is somewhat of a stretch. There is a channel in which strategy, and on occasion, conversations there have spilled into other rooms, is discussed but that has died off after the presidential race heated up said strategy seems largely focused on my campaign server now, and if elected, I plan to leave it there.

My rebuttal - perhaps it was a stretch, but I was only basing it off the words you previously used, that there is a separate channel for bashing Federalists. I am glad to see that it has died off since the campaign started.

Just as a note: while I'm certainly guilty of being negative in the past, I've made it a point to not let Discord become a place for people bashing - I prefer to be direct. I have a small campaign server that is primarily used for GOTV purposes - as soon as it was created, one of the first posts I made stated that bashing the opposition won't be permitted, and I've came down on people a couple times when it started up. Once the election is over, my campaign server will have served it's purpose and will shut down. I have tried to my best to handle my campaign server exactly like I will handle an administration server. Nobody is perfect and some stuff will be said, but I'll do my very best to keep discussion civil and productive.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The measure of Paygo would in all likelyhood ensure that my Atlas Deal proposals would be paid for. As for capital gains and corporate taxes, as a staring point in negotiations, I'd like to see the top rate raised to 28%.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't disagree with anything my opponent has said but I'd like to add that the drone industry need to be regulated to stay away manned aircraft by basically limiting them to a certain altitude or by not allowing them near airport runways without permission from air traffic controllers.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you plan to ensure your plan can be fully funded and is realistic?[/quote]

Let me address the cutting taxes bit. I am for making the tax code fairer for the common man, like I did in Fremont by revoking a 50% tax on firearms, but am against of across the board tax cuts that often, in real life, largely aid the billionaire class while ballooning the deficit.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. I have problems with how the regions are currently structured. I think many of the cabinet offices in Lincoln are excessive, and would like to see all regions employ a parliamentary system of sorts that allows for early elections in the event of inactivity and would also allow for activity to continue in the event that either the legislative leader or the executive to go inactive. However, that is for the regions to decide. As for the Vice Presidency, I think both ideas you suggested could be problematic. The Vice President in its current form is also present on the NSC along with the GRC and DRC. If separately elected, there'd be two people automatically, barring an executive order from the president, sent to those councils, even if they're relationship would be toxic. Having VP be elected by only the Senate also gives the House no say despite the fact that the VP is the president of Congress. One problem that is often not discussed is the overall lack of debate bicameralism, which I otherwise support, provides, at least in public. Very rarely do you see bills actually be developed gradually on the floor of Congress and I'm not sure if there's an easy solution to such issue without incorporating the disadvantages of one large legislative body. As for Parliament, I would not say I am 100% against it, but only if my concerns raised above could be addressed without unintended consequences would I support it.

>To tmth: You said "tough cuts" may need to be made. Why would you favor austerity?

[tmthforu94]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

How do you plan to ensure your plan can be fully funded and is realistic?

Let me address the cutting taxes bit. I am for making the tax code fairer for the common man, like I did in Fremont by revoking a 50% tax on firearms, but am against of across the board tax cuts that often, in real life, largely aid the billionaire class while ballooning the deficit.[/quote]
So just to be clear, you do not plan on cutting taxes for the lower and middle class in the next budget?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No. I have problems with how the regions are currently structured. I think many of the cabinet offices in Lincoln are excessive, and would like to see all regions employ a parliamentary system of sorts that allows for early elections in the event of inactivity and would also allow for activity to continue in the event that either the legislative leader or the executive to go inactive. However, that is for the regions to decide. As for the Vice Presidency, I think both ideas you suggested could be problematic. The Vice President in its current form is also present on the NSC along with the GRC and DRC. If separately elected, Having VP be elected by only the Senate also gives the House no say despite the fact that the VP is the president of Congress. One problem that is often not discussed is the overall lack of debate bicameralism, which I otherwise support, provides, at least in public. Very rarely do you see bills actually be developed gradually on the floor of Congress and I'm not sure if there's an easy solution to such issue without incorporating the disadvantages of one large legislative body. As for Parliament, I would not say I am 100% against it, but only if my concerns raised above could be addressed without unintended consequences would I support it.

I'm a bit confused by your wording on this, but just to clarify since "If separately elected" and "Having VP be elected by the Senate" are two entirely different proposals...

My proposal specifically states that the VP would be elected by Congress, which means both the House and Senate. Since that addresses the concern you just raised, would you support this reform? Why do you think The People elected the Vice President separately from the President would be problematic?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think you have to look at the budget holistically. At this point coming out of a war, I don't think further tax cuts are probably appropriate. And I don't think it is responsible to make specific suggestions on how to cut the budget until we have the numbers to look at it. But if we want to move towards a balanced budget, it takes looking at where we can make smart cuts to spending as well as promoting "economic growth," a term I know you are very opposed to. I also don't think the solution is to keep taxing the rich. To compare our regions: The South is able to provide all basic government services and has no income tax. In comparison, Fremont has up to 20% income tax on the rich and doesn't fund any government services - at this point they just collect these taxes to fund government projects, basic services won't be accounted for until next years budget. The differences between the regions are so substantial - The South has cut back on regulations, has low taxes and is in a fiscally stable state. I think if we had a real life simulation of these budgets, I'm not sure why anyone wealthy would want to have residency in Fremont, and would expect your revenue numbers to plummet as people flee the region For those interested in checking out Fremont's budget, click here. I'm sure you'll try and claim that I'm the candidate "for the rich" but I would counter that I think I'm just the candidate who is pragmatic. Under YE's proposal, the top marginal combined rate for regional/federal level for a Fremont citizen would be 78%. I don't find that to be realistic.

[YE]

I cleared up in the original post regarding my comments on possible changes to the vice presidency.

Well, at least you're honest. You're aligning yourself with powerful interests by claiming its pragmatic to ensure a few billionaires don't pay a 78% marginal income tax, something that affects very few people and if large concentrations of wealth were broken up, something I've made a central theme to my campaign and is something both myself and the last Federalist President seem to agree on, would not be detrimental to the nation's economy. The libertarian natural state of little taxation and no redistribution of wealth is not compatible with a vibrant, functional democracy, and yet arguing against tax increase to cater towards the elites, is a sign of a blind spot towards are present inequality problems.

[tmthforu94]

I cleared up in the original post regarding my comments on possible changes to the vice presidency.

No you didn't. It still says

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So I repeat my question: My proposal specifically states that the VP would be elected by Congress, which means both the House and Senate. Since that addresses the concern you just raised, would you support this reform?

I cleared up in the original post regarding my comments on possible changes to the vice presidency.

Well, at least you're honest. You're aligning yourself with powerful interests by claiming its pragmatic to ensure a few billionaires don't pay a 78% marginal income tax, something that affects very few people and if large concentrations of wealth were broken up, something I've made a central theme to my campaign and is something both myself and the last Federalist President seem to agree on, would not be detrimental to the nation's economy. The libertarian natural state of little taxation and no redistribution of wealth is not compatible with a vibrant, functional democracy, and yet arguing against tax increase to cater towards the elites, is a sign of a blind spot towards are present inequality problems.

I'm not aligning myself with powerful interests, though I'm sure you'll use that as PM fodder when you try to rile lefties up against me this weekend. I'm simply saying that your proposal is unrealistic. Here are three primary reasons:
1) people would change residency in a heartbeat to Lincoln or Jefferson/The South to avoid the lofty income tax you implemented in Fremont, combined with the increase at the federal level. There goes your main source of revenue.
2) That up to 20% tax rate you're charging people (people get taxed starting at $125k - a lot of money in Kansas, but doesn't go as far in LA) isn't even to fund government services, it is just for the legislature's projects. No way people would be OK with that.
3) Charging any Fremont regional income tax, at least for 2019, was COMPLETELY unnecessary since there was already enough funds in surplus from last year's budget debacle to cover the projects. Again, no way would people be OK with essentially a tax that is just being used to beef up the regional coffers. As I've said before, I think it is ridiculous for hundreds of billions dollars to be kept by the regional governments. That money should be returned to The People. The regressive tax was a start, but did not go nearly far enough. This is a big plan you'll see when The South releases it's budget in the coming weeks as we also have too much in regional coffers.


My closing pitch on the issue of taxes - YE will try to convince people, publicly and privately, that I am beholden to big interests and big money. That is not true. I have no plans to cut taxes for the rich or corporations. Please read the three points I made above - YE's plan is simply fiscally irresponsible.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What would happen if the House and Senate elected different presidents? Or would one representative have one vote, undermining bicameralism?  Either way, much downside listed above to a separately elected vice president would still apply to a directly elected one as the sense of President/Vice President unity is gone.

[YE]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very few people pay a 20% tax rate on top of a 58% marginal rate, as I've stated previously, and while taxation is one factor in why people move, it is not the only one and not every single billionaire will move if my policies were to go in effect.

As for what I did tax wise as FM, my plans as Fremont FM to reduce but not abolish the income tax was so the region could absorb future spending hikes that come from absorbing said services without shocking the system too much. As for why said services initially weren't included in the budget, the framework needed to inherit such services, via writing laws to regulate services, was not put in place, largely because of inactivity that dates back to shortly after the re-set and only began to improve after action from Yankee that allowed Truman to set up a new parliamentary government.

[tmthforu94]

Closing Statement

First, I want to give the obligatory "Thank You" to Thumb21 for hosting this debate, YE and MB for participating, and most importantly, The People who took the time to read through this debate, especially those who asked questions!!

We started this campaign with hope, believing that while this game has great people, more can be done to create an Atlasia that is more inclusive and provides more opportunity. I am just as hopeful tonight about our future. Lumine and I are two experienced Atlasians who are excited and ready to get to work for The People. We have ran a strong campaign, as evidenced during this debate and in our campaign thread.

YE started out this debate with a simple campaign message: Vote for me because I'm not a Federalist. Maybe it's just because I AM a Federalist , but I don't find that message convincing or compelling. The YE/Jimmy campaign has been underwhelming. On foreign policy, they outsourced their vision for a speechwriter to write, then had to retract portions that made unfair attacks on Lumine and I. Their domestic policy plan is simply unfeasible. And on game reform, they have no big ideas on how we can improve the way this game operates. This is not the leadership we need.

Early on, Lumine and I made expectations clear on what our administration will look like: we will be extremely active and engaged. We'll set high standards for activity and professionalism and expect our cabinet to maintain them, regardless of whether they're in our party or not. We'll seek to get this game back to the basics - a mock government - by actively responding to GM stories and working with regional leaders to do so. We'll prioritize keeping the Wiki up-to-date and we'll have high standards for how our Discord server is run. Most importantly, we're going to have fun!!! People get too serious and worked up over this game sometimes, I'll admit I've been guilty of that myself. The nastiness makes it worse. Let's have dramatic, spirited debates over legislation and policy, instead of having those debates over whether we like "so and so" in the other party. This game is at it's best when it has good debate, and that's what we will bring it back to.

YE was right in his opening statement - this election provides a unique opportunity. We can continue doing the same thing we've been doing at a more active pace, or we can take a big step and elect an administration that has big ideas and is ready to make big improvements to the game. Lumine and I are that ticket. I will work so hard as your President - I will be active and bring passion and dedication to the job, something that has been sorely lacking.

I hope we have earned your vote. I promise you, looking back, you will not regret saying that you voted for Tmth/Lumine in February 2019. We will make you proud.

[YE]

First off, I want to say that this campaign is not about simply being a federalist and no one should vote based on the notion that one isn't a Federalist. I have argued that people should vote for Jimmy and I based on our ideas that have been presented above, some of whom are ideas Federalists have backed in varying times in our history. I will say I have different ideas on how to go about reforming the game, or  on domestic policy, where his interests and beliefs seem more aligned with the few not the many, and on game reform, although there is more agreement on foreign policy.

This has been a spirited election with high stakes debate ahead of what appears to be a hard fight, tight, and nervous race. This I think i good for the game and is in contrast to this inactive presidential term. Nevertheless, with this debate over, now is the chance for each and every one of you to head to the polls to make your decision. The choice is always yours.

[thumb21]

It appears nobody has anything else to say so I'll close the debate.

Thank you candidates for your concluding statements and your participation in this debate! Good luck in the election!

This concludes the debate, if you have any comments, go to the commentary thread: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=313249.msg6662810#msg6662810