June 2019 presidential debate

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

June 2019 Presidential Debate

Hello and welcome to the Presidential Debate for the upcoming elections starting on the 21st of June! This debate will consist of 3 rounds: Opening statements, questions and then rebuttals and closing statements.

Please welcome the candidates:
Governor YoungTexan
Former President Adam Griffin
Former Vice President Kingpoleon

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?

Legislature Sizes:
> What are your thoughts on the overall issue of the sizes of regional legislatures?

Note: Only the candidates can write here. If you want to comment, the commentary thread is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=321877.msg6833279#msg6833279

[Adam Griffin]

I am so humbled to be a candidate for President once again, and am thankful to the Debate Moderator and organizers for putting together this event.

Ultimately, I have let myself be drafted back into the presidential arena due to a variety of structural problems that I have seen developing in this game. Much like I accurately predicted the collapse of 2015, I am afraid we are once again potentially facing a crisis if we do not respond quickly and responsibly. Fortunately, the structural issues are less severe than they were four years ago - but a strong and experienced leader is nevertheless needed to tackle these challenges while not repeating the mistakes of the past.

As a former two-term President who faced the most difficult period in the game's history, I believe there is very little doubt that my ticket can rise to the occasion for the next four months. However, I am by no means a one-trick pony, and I look forward to pursuing a new direction for this game - one that we haven't seen since the Glorious Reset. On economic, social and foriegn affairs, I intend as President to chart a new direction for our game and ensure its sustainability for years to come. In this debate, I intend to outline just that.

[Adam Griffin]

What would your administration's trade policy look like?

As outlined in my ticket's platform, The Glorious Deal!, our overarching guide for trade policy is to ensure we "support fair trade agreements". We believe that the worker is the cornerstone of both government and the economy: to ignore them is to suffer pain across both fronts.

With that being said, the world is rapidly transforming. In some respects, this is alleviating inequalities, while in other areas, it is exacerbating them. Ultimately, it is my belief that the biggest issues that must be addressed via trade policy are the effect of automation on our workforce and disruption due to technology; this means that we must set forth in building dominance in new, long-term industries while also protecting existing global dominance in more traditional industries such as agriculture.

While we should do everything in our power to avoid initiating trade wars on a global scale, tariffs in and of themselves are not the enemy. As such, I will support protections in the form of tariffs in a variety of fields such as material science, optoelectronics, communications, robotics and other emerging/nascent industries. This will allow us to grow both a strong domestic base for satiating demand and emerge as a global leader in these sectors.

What would be your administration's policies on immigration?

Ultimately, any immigration policy that is built upon walls, fences and the demonizing of people is bound to fail. To solve the immigration issue, we must look at the problem - and more specifically, the root cause. Being somebody who originates from a heavily-immigrant city, I understand all too well why immigrants come to our country: to work. They are not here to freeload or otherwise take from the system. They want to work - often harder and for less - than many of our citizens, and they want to provide their families with better lives.

At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

As such, I support legislation that will expand the E-VERIFY system, making it freely and publicly available. Businesses and employers will be required to utilize the system and maintain proof of usage for each employee hired. A new national agency should be created with the sole task of randomly showing up to businesses and verifying the employment status of each worker, with a sufficient number of employees to ensure every business in Atlasia can be randomly inspected at least once every 5 years. For every instance of unauthorized labor discovered, that business or sole proprietor will be fined a sum of $250,000 with no exceptions (barring an error in the E-VERIFY data initially received by the employer).

If you want to stop the flow, then you have to go to the source. The source of this issue is Atlasian employers breaking the law. Physical barriers are not nor have ever been a deterrent - especially considering a large sum enter the country legally but simply overstay their tourist visas.

What are your thoughts on the overall issue of the sizes of regional legislatures?

As I outlined in detail in my campaign thread (a must-read for those who want to better understand the structure of the game and get a nuanced perspective on game mechanics), I am in support of reducing regional legislative sizes, generally speaking. When I helped create the new game, the goal was to ensure that both the House and regional legislatures would be launching points for new players; that there would be both regional and federal pathways. Sadly, it has not always worked this way - but that does not mean that we can afford to dramatically expand the number of offices in-game.

Over the past 6-7 years, the number of truly active players (those who wish to run for office and are committed to the endeavor) generally has remained the same - even when the number of voters hasn't. If the game shrinks immensely (<150 players) the situation obviously worsens. Likewise, perhaps if the game were to dramatically grow in size in a sustainable fashion (>300 players), we could afford more offices. However, the end result has invariably been one where whenever we add offices, we generally end up forcing more uninterested people into running for those offices, merely warming seats and contributing nothing to the dialogue. That's the best case scenario: the worst-case scenario is one where offices go vacant, governments collapse and the game becomes a veritable ghost town.

Since my campaign announcement regarding legislative sizes, I'm pleased to report that we've scaled back the maximum size of the legislature in Lincoln. As President, I will encourage action by the other regions to follow suit and guarantee sustainable legislative sizes (3-7 seats in each region). I would prefer to let the regions take action on this - and I believe it possible - in part because it will be more palatable to the various constituencies that comprise our game and because it will be a tall order passing any federal requirements. As such, I intend to be more of a cheerleader and narrative-driver on this issue than anything. However, I will obviously support a bipartisan coalition to address this structural flaw federally if it so emerges, as I did during the Constitutional Convention in 2015-16 alongside individuals such as the current Federalist Party Chair.

Ultimately, we now have more elected offices in-game than we had in the months preceding the great collapse, Constitutional Convention and Glorious Reset of 2015-16. This is not a sustainable situation. The game works best when there are a combined total of approximately 40-42 offices. I know many do not want to hear about the lessons of the past, but with respect to these kinds of numerical constraints, it doesn't matter whether an idea is new or fresh: this is one rule that absolutely needs to be adhered to as much as possible.

[Kingpoleon]

I am glad to be on this debate stage, and I wish to join my fellow candidates in thanking Thumb and TimTurner for hosting this debate. I think we all need to make sure that we appreciate the importance of this job: a fair and open debate, for all the public to see.

My opponents speak of vague and various issues: leadership; partisanship; a new generation of leaders; the candidate who stands for “a new direction... to not repeat the mistakes of the past” boldly stands against the candidate who wants “not a continuous retread of the past... a new vision”. I’m not going to pretend they are two sides of the same coin; they sound like the same side to me.

In contrast, I stand for space exploration more than anything else. My opponents speak of a vague “fight for the future” - I am prepared to lead us to space. I am prepared to move forwards, with a daring manner and mind, towards a new goal. We will win the Space Race once and for all - not as some ultra-nationalist, waving the flags of Atlasia’s glory. Instead, we will win the Space Race for the advancement of all mankind. This country I love, but it is for every person on the planet that I fight.

A new agenda I present to you, the people of my beloved country: one with a vast and unprecedented vision, to develop space exploration as never before. While my opponents intend to focus on the technicalities of tariffs and the exact tax on excess returns, I intend to promise you a guarantee for humanity: we will not go extinct because we live on one planet, and the sooner we start preparations for Mars and beyond, the sooner our unborn children and grandchildren can be protected by our actions.

[Adam Griffin]

I will also begin answering questions submitted by the public in the commentary thread within this debate thread, for the sake of simplicity and continuity:

PUBLIC QUESTION: Many people have in the past campaigned in favour of a parliamentary system at the federal level, like the ones Fremont and Lincoln currently have. Most notably in recient times, the Montfortian Party. What is your opinion on the matter?

Generally speaking, I am not supportive of converting existing regions (i.e. more or less just the South at this point) to a parliamentary system. In both cases where the other 2 regions have embraced this, we've seen an explosion in the number of elected offices (temporarily at least; without additional measures being taken). Given my answers in the debate, I cannot in good faith support a system that contributes to what I see as a structural problem: an increase in elected positions. While I understand that correlation =/= causation and that a sample size of 2 isn't exactly absolute in terms of verdict, I think there may be another reason to oppose them - at least for some.

Simply put, I've observed considerable crossover between those who support such a system and those who abhor the notion of "partisan politics". In reality, parliamentary systems seem to accelerate the notion of partisanship - albeit indirectly - rather than weaken them. When we end up with "majorities" and "oppositions", even if they are comprised of multiple parties, they inevitably are falling along ideological lines, further reinforcing a two-party ideology system. Given I'm not inherently opposed to a two-party system, I'm mostly playing Devil's advocate here, but it's an important point for select individuals who support multi-party affairs, cooperation and parliamentary systems alike to consider.

PUBLIC QUESTION:For YT and Griffin: The third candidate in the race, Kingpoleon, has made Space Exploration a key point of his platform. What are your plans on that area?

I have spoken to Kingpoleon on multiple occasions both publicly and privately - including prior to his entrance into the race - about how we are in general agreement on the matter. To keep it simple, I will fight for as much as $100 billion in annual NASA spending to advance human causes. In my view, this is the most important long-term ambition of humanity: to get off of this rock and become a viable, multi-planetary species. Even immensely critical issues such as climate change pale in comparison to the need of us thriving off of this planet.

However, I acknowledge that there are a variety of issues we must first consider. Most notably, the composition of Congress will determine how friendly it is toward a quintupling of NASA's budget; I believe the most reasonable course of action for those who support advancing space exploration is to support left-of-center members of the House and Senate, regardless of whatever campaign pledges or promises are made.

Additionally, I have promised to do everything in my power to produce a budget that is both balanced and on-time; given the rampant abuse of taxpayer dollars by my primary opponent's Federalist Party over the past 2-3 years, we have hundreds of billions of dollars in deficits to first make up for before we can begin considering additional expenditures. Where there is a will, however, there is a way - and I intend to put space exploration, asteroid and ice mining, gas harvesting and permanent colonization efforts at the forefront of any new set of public investment policies.

[Adam Griffin]

PUBLIC QUESTION: To all candidates: What are your plans regarding Social Security? Are you comfortable with the current level of benefits, or do you think they need to be expanded or reduced?

After conducting a brief bit of research, I am seeing virtually no changes made to SSI since reset. Besides the period of obsession where some were combining every department and agency under the Sun with something else, the only changes I have been able to find were:

• Allow regions to have 50% of select Social Security payments cut if found to be violating adoption procedures
• Restrict people from being able to collect SSI & UI simultaneously

However, the search function isn't known to be the best feature in the world, so perhaps I've missed something? However, I was also rather shocked to discover that our expenditures for Social Security in FY 2019 remain unchanged from FY 2018. This is not good. We obviously need to be looking at COLAs ASAP.

Eliminating the payroll tax cap would be a prime legislative goal of mine regarding the program. By some very quick estimates, this would reinforce the program with an additional revenue of $150-200b annually. At minimum, we can guarantee the program's solvency in perpetuity - or put us well on that path. If and once we succeed in securing an elimination of the payroll tax cap, deal with COLAs and determine exactly how much additional revenue would be generated, we can then turn to examining how best to expand Social Security, whether that be by lowering the retirement age, increasing benefits, minimizing early retirement penalties and/or increasing said COLAs.  

PUBLIC QUESTION: Hypothetical excercise: If you could change a single thing about the present Constitution, what would that be?

I've kicked myself in the shin post-ConCon on a number of matters regarding things we either forgot to include, should have included (but didn't) and/or did include that we should have jettisoned. Nevertheless, I think given my insistence on the stability of the game at this point, I would insist on including a proposal of mine from during the ConCon:

A constitutional cap on regional legislative offices; let's use 15 as an example. Via a Census-like apportionment method every 2 months, each Region would be allocated a number of those offices based on its population. Not only would a Region lose seats if its population shrank to a certain level, but it would lose seats if its population grew beyond a certain level as well.

The reason? To ensure Regional balance in terms of population; such a measure would reduce the likelihood of multiple parties and/or entities crowding into one Region strategically/for political gain, which we all know drains the other Regions of active players and voters. While it would not be full-proof (for example, if a Senate seat was the goal of such an "invasion"), it would be our best bet in minimizing unequal population trends among the Regions.

Just one example proposed from the past:

Max number of regional legislators fixed to federal formula, assessed every 2 months:

Idea #1 (My Favorite Idea)

• <25% of the game's population = 3 Legislators
• 25-40% of the game's population = 5 Legislators
• >40% of the game's population = 3 Legislators

Estimated # of Regional Offices = 15

At the end of the day, 15 is the cap and target in the above example, but you could end up with as few as 12 if one region ended up being excessively large and one excessively small in that particular case. As such, there can be flexibility with such a cap (presumably as long as it is an odd number; could be 17 legislators, 19, etc).

[thumb21]

Thank you for your answers 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:
> What will be your administration's approach to healthcare policy?
> From Pericles: What are your plans regarding Social Security? Are you comfortable with the current level of benefits, or do you think they need to be expanded or reduced?
> From Pericles to YT: Do you stand by the Social Security reform plan you proposed last election, is that something you plan to implement and if so how do you rebut charges that it is actually a stealth cut to Social Security?

Social Issues:
> How will your administration approach foreign policy?
> From Tack50 to YT and Griffin: The third candidate in the race, Kingpoleon, has made Space Exploration a key point of his platform. What are your plans on that area?

Game/Other Policy:
> What is your view on how the relationship between regional and federal government should work?
> From Tack50: Many people have in the past campaigned in favour of a parliamentary system at the federal level, like the ones Fremont and Lincoln currently have. Most notably in recient times, the Montfortian Party. What is your opinion on the matter?
> From Tack50 to Kingpoleon: According to all analysis and polling (even if it is unreliable), you are in a very distant third. Do you plan on endorsing either candidate for second preference? And who would you rather have controlling Congress, the Labor/Pax coalition or the Fed/ACP coalition? Or maybe a split Congress?
> From Lumine: If you could change a single thing about the present Constitution, what would that be?

Thank you to Tack50, Pericles and Lumine 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=321877.msg6833279#msg6833279

[Kingpoleon]

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

My trade policy is what it always has been: free and fair trade. I will speak with economists, as well as corporate and labor union leaders. I will review our current trade policies, and renegotiate any and all policies that hurt Atlasian workers while protecting the economic prosperity currently being seen under the practices of free trade. I will also negotiate free trade deals extensively, with advice from the aforementioned groups, to extend our trade with more countries and diversify our reliance on other nations.

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

On immigration, I broadly support sweeping reforms with three goals in mind. Firstly, we will reform border security so that I can safely say: Atlasia’s borders are secure. We will review our audit of homeland security and discuss very small budgetary adjustments there to reform said programs. Secondly, we will review the potential effects of raising legal immigration, particularly from high levels of illegal immigration. Thirdly, we will implement a limited citizenship and amnesty program lasting from two to six years, depending on the individual’s background. Lastly, the river of drugs into this country and the flow of guns out of this country will be halted. No longer will guns made in America arm cartels in Latin America, and I will crack down as hard on this as I will on those smuggling drugs into the country.

Legislature Sizes:
> What are your thoughts on the overall issue of the sizes of regional legislatures?

I believe that, with the current level of activity, small regional legislatures are appropriate. In cases with more candidates, more seats should be open. The range should probably be between three and nine representatives, requiring at least two more candidates running than the number of open seats, with three as an absolute minimum. The current restrictions I support, as well as continued restrictions, provided they leave it open for larger seats when more activity occurs.

[Adam Griffin]

The questions asked by the public featured in Round 2 have already been answered by me in previous replies above, marked in red as "Public Questions":

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

Pre-reset, we had what was known as Fritzcare - a vital advancement for the time. One of the greatest losses during the Glorious Reset was Fritzcare, as we had enacted it, built upon it and tweaked it over a period of several years.

At this point, a shift toward a a single-payer system is absolutely necessary. I think it is nothing but hubris to imagine we can conquer the complexities of such a system in a single term and do it properly, but we can begin implementing policy that allows individuals to buy into Medicare at minimum. Over time and with enough competent legislators and amenable Presidents, shifting the nation's biggest economic sector to a single-payer system can be done.

Such a system in my view will need to contain three primary components: universal coverage, universal contributions and aggressive price controls. Much is said about the tens of millions who lack access to healthcare insurance, but we often forget about the tens of millions more who effectively cannot use the insurance they have due to costs. By adopting a single-payer system that does not bring our healthcare costs in line with the rest of the developed world over the medium-to-long-term (10-13% of GDP), a single-payer system will only take thousands of dollars via taxes out of peoples' pockets who already are struggling to make ends meet. By bringing our costs down via price controls over a 10-year period by 30-40%, we can sustain a single-payer system in which everybody contributes a portion of their earnings (4-20%) and has access to real, tangible healthcare without the risk of bankrupting millions of Atlasians.

How will your administration approach foreign policy?

It's very simple, really. In 2015, I ran on a firm premise - one backed up my years of personal stances that can be verified: I firmly stand as a non-interventionist. During my first two terms as President, not one shot was fired, not one country was invaded or bombed, and not a single life was lost due to an Atlasian-initiated military conflict. There's a reason why I won the libertarian vote in 2015 and barnstormed to victory. My views have not changed since, and I will as President guarantee once again a period of peace and stability through diplomacy and not picking crackpot GMs who randomly nuke entire countries and bomb the White House or whatever.

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

More or less how it does today. Pre-reset, the regional governments had more power and influence in some areas, and less in others. The Constitutional Convention shifted much of this (for example, it reduced the number of regional offices while increasing the number of federal offices, while also giving the Regions control of Senate elections rather than the federal government).

We didn't get everything right, but by and large, the balance is better today than it was 4 years ago. Obviously the federal government reserves the right through constitutional procedures to limit or otherwise reserve powers for itself that may not currently rest solely with it, but I see no major issue (barring the imbalance in the number of federal/regional offices) that is of immediate or dire concern.

[Adam Griffin]

[thumb21]

Due to a communicative lapse, the debate ground to a halt, will resume soon.

[Kingpoleon]

Economic Policy:
> What will be your administration's approach to healthcare policy?
I was actually one of the consultants on the current healthcare policies of Atlasia. We did a lot of work, primarily basing it off of the Healthy Americans Act and the German healthcare system, alongside a series of other healthcare systems. I would actually like to discuss, with regional leaders, the current regional healthcare systems and suggest reforms.

I will request the totals on healthcare and health insurance expenditures and quality numbers in Atlasia, so that we can see what savings, healthcare quality, and other factors have changed, and how we can improve on it. Be it by working with the regions to offer regional insurance programs across regional lines, decreasing costs in prescription drugs, and many other factors, I want us to have a top-notch healthcare and health insurance program.


> From Pericles: What are your plans regarding Social Security? Are you comfortable with the current level of benefits, or do you think they need to be expanded or reduced?

I am comfortable with the current level of benefits, but I will look into adjusting the COLA as necessary, particularly retroactively considering Adam’s findings. Social Security should remain largely untouched, and I intend to make sure it remains untouched in terms of payouts and most other factors. Reform should never mean reducing benefits for those who need them most.

In terms of removing the payroll tax cap, I am largely supportive, but I believe that past a certain point, it should be halved. In most other countries, the amount paid past the cap goes down, and I believe it should apply here as well.

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

I intend to have a realistic view of foreign policy, but the foreign policy school of realism has a major flaw: the security and warfare principles of realism, embracing power politics and, in turn, war as the ends (and a positive outcome) of international relations. Diplomacy, sanctions, and pressure have been the greatest source of results for Atlasia in recent years.

I intend to develop new relationships with allies across the world: we will increase aid and trade to India, develop and extend free trade agreements with the United Kingdom, and support our allies throughout the world. My guiding philosophy is that of a man struck down too soon, John F. Kennedy: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” Those are the words we ought to remember, going forward, in foreign policy.

We will not police the world, but we must not ignore it either. I fear my opponents - who both show support for non-interventionism - may actually necessitate more intervention than otherwise. We cannot empower our enemies by our silence, by refusing to use military, economic, and diplomatic options that we employ to protect justice overseas. This minimal interventionism may not be as popular as non-interventionism, but it is right.

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

I believe the regional governments should remain subordinate to the federal government, and the federal government should continue to give the regions large jurisdiction over taxation, healthcare, and many other issues on a regional level. The current relationship is one I staunchly support. We must work together, or find ourselves torn apart.

I am actually currently the commander of Northern Security Forces, which I first proposed as a joint regional force to provide military support, to assist law enforcement, and to work on terrorism cases. My forces were voted down with every vote against me. Within a month, a terrorist strike happened, and my proposal proceeded to pass unanimously. I would like to see similar regional security forces in the South and Fremont, so that the regions have a say and vested involvement in law enforcement and national security.

Similarly, I wish to discuss with the regions further development of railroads to maximize travel efficiency, reduce our energy consumption, and make our country more connected than ever. On both transportation and law enforcement, I feel as though we can do more with cooperation between the regions and the federal government than we ever could, with both separate.

> From Tack50: Many people have in the past campaigned in favour of a parliamentary system at the federal level, like the ones Fremont and Lincoln currently have. Most notably in recient times, the Montfortian Party. What is your opinion on the matter?

I am actually very interested in a parliamentary system, but I don’t intend to just replace it like that. We must have a two step, referendum process. Firstly, do the voters of Atlasia approve of a constitutional convention with the main goal of exploring a more parliamentary system? Secondly, if the first is approved, will the convention’s actions and alterations be supported by the people at large, or do they prefer our current system?

This is a very delicate matter that I would take up as a priority after space, healthcare, transportation, and budget issues are resolved. I don’t support taking any such action without the people approving of it.

> From Tack50 to Kingpoleon: According to all analysis and polling (even if it is unreliable), you are in a very distant third. Do you plan on endorsing either candidate for second preference? And who would you rather have controlling Congress, the Labor/Pax coalition or the Fed/ACP coalition? Or maybe a split Congress?

I will consider making an endorsement for second preference. However, polling may be inaccurate, as I have asked some probable supporters to not take polls, so that I can have a more accurate idea of who supports me that hasn’t contacted me.

> From Lumine: If you could change a single thing about the present Constitution, what would that be?

I would make amendments somewhat easier to make, requiring either the majority support of Congress or the regions, followed by a federal referendum, requiring majority vote and a large voter turnout. I am actually very proud of our judicial system, which I wrote up the basis of confirmation for, and which has functioned very well.

[thumb21]

Thank you for your answers to the questions, candidates! We will now move on to round three of the debate!

Candidates, you have 72 hours to answer the following questions, give rebuttals and write a closing statement!

Economic Policy:
> Technological changes are constantly reshaping the economy. How should policy be adapted to deal with these changes?
> What approach will your administration take to tax policy?

Social Issues:
> From Suburban New Jersey Conservative: How do you plan to address gun violence??
> What policies do you support to address climate change?

Game/Other Policy:
> From Fhtagn to YT and Griffin: What will you do to hold those in Congress and those you appoint to Cabinet department positions accountable for inactivity/doing the bare minimum to be considered "active"?
> From Sestak: We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?

Thank you to Suburban New Jersey Conservative, Fhtagn and Sestak 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=321877.msg6833279#msg6833279

[Kingpoleon]

Economic Policy:
> Technological changes are constantly reshaping the economy. How should policy be adapted to deal with these changes?
I believe technology does best, largely when left alone. No form of governmental intervention and regulation, beyond standard worker, safety, anti-trust, and anti-exploitation regulations, can or will improve this. Now, limited subsidies to renewable energy companies make sense. Limited subsidies to companies like the United Launch Alliance and SpaceX make sense. Similar, other science and technology programs are programs I have always supported and would support slight increases in funding there.

> What approach will your administration take to tax policy?

I intend to instate a broad base value-added tax of 5%, in order to fund space exploration and reduce the deficit. I am also investigating either adjusting income taxes slightly, or raising a very small - less than 3% - wealth tax. The deficit, within a month and a half of me taking office, will be reduced to under 150 billion dollars.

Social Issues:
> From Suburban New Jersey Conservative: How do you plan to address gun violence?
I do support universal background checks, regulation of gun shows, an initial 72 hour waiting period, and, for re-entering eligibility for purchasing guns, certain mandatory tests. Furthermore, as previously stated, I will order a law enforcement crackdown on the gun running into Mexico.

> What policies do you support to address climate change?
I support railroad development, which will reduce our reliance on cars. I will negotiate contracts with companies including CXS Transportation, the Kansas City Southern, the Norfolk Southern Railway, the Canadian Pacific, the Union Pacific Railroad, Canadian National, and the BNSF Railway. Amtrak will be reformed and refitted in order to manage and regulate the national system, and I will support annual funding of fifteen to twenty billion dollars in order to build it.

I intend to introduce other methods of reducing our consumption of energy and subsidizing renewable energy research. This will allow us to follow the Paris Agreement, and we will fight climate change because we must. Just because we are going to another planet doesn’t mean we can trash this one.

I also support increasing the carbon tax slightly, and subsidizing energy efficiency development. We will clean up the oceans and develop new ways of waste management. I am proud to see new advancements in technology in this sector. We will fight climate change together, because we must. This is my home, and the home of 7.7 billion other people. It’s the only one we have, and I will protect it as we all must.

Game/Other Policy:
> From Sestak: We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?
I will because I have no option. I don’t have the party line votes to keep me in office, and I can’t let the game run amok without me. If we go to space, we will see a renewed interest and activity in Atlasia. If we develop a state of the art railroad transportation system, we will see people more interested in Atlasia. If we do all this and more, we will have a hard task ahead of us.

We must act now, if we wish to revive Atlasia, and, with my Presidency, we will do so. Activity will spike, and, if it does not, I will submit to the judgment of the voters in the next election. Every single one of you should know: you can trust me. The Federalist flunkies and Labor’s lackeys have controlled Atlasia for too long. Under them, Atlasia has seen low levels of activity and falling. It is time someone who represented people, not a party, showed them what we want: a renewed, sustainable increase in activity.

[Adam Griffin]

Technological changes are constantly reshaping the economy. How should policy be adapted to deal with these changes?

The fact that technology remains an economic disruptor is a constant reminder for working people all across this country. Unlike past technological revolutions - where advancements led to demand for new industries that only humans could fulfill - we are now facing a reality where such revolutions in technology not only are replacing the need for human labor in many existing industries, but are also able to fulfill the demand for the industries created by this change.

The long-term reality is that not only will low-skill jobs and labor be replaced by machines, algorithms, software and/or robots, but even the most abstract professions (think writers, artists, poets and the like) are ultimately on the chopping block. We are rapidly approaching a point where human labor will be of no inherent value from a capitalist standpoint.

As such, it stands to reason that we must begin moving ourselves away from a system where human being derive their dignity and value from the essence of work. After all, what happens to society and our economy when 50%, 75% or even 90% of the human race literally cannot obtain jobs?

We must begin to imagine a reality over the next 30-50 years where human life and our standard of living coincide with one another regardless of occupation. The phasing in a universal basic income over this period is a great start, but I believe we must also look at gradual increased public sector competition/ownership in various industries to provide the basis for that to be a reality.

What approach will your administration take to tax policy?

I've pledged to balance the budget during my term. With a cooperative Congress, we'll get it done. I'll be the first to say that I won't shy away from increasing taxes on those who can afford it to ensure we aren't racking up deficits for the next generation.

The last time I was President, a variety of tax rates were considerably higher than they are today. We know that we can sustain such measures responsibly. Some of the areas I intend to research thoroughly as President include financial transactions, inheritance, carbon/pollution and those with extreme wealth in general - to see where we can implement new policy or increase revenues through existing ones to ensure both a balanced budget and a more equitable society.

What will you do to hold those in Congress and those you appoint to Cabinet department positions accountable for inactivity/doing the bare minimum to be considered "active"?

I'm running to be President; I am not a Party Chair, so I have no control over what individual members of Congress do or don't do.

With that being said, I have consistently argued that a reduction in offices - both elected and appointed - must strongly be considered. Generally speaking, the more cabinet positions that exist, the more inactive and/or vacant positions will also exist. This is why I've held discussions that will look at which cabinet positions can be combined and which ones can be eliminated outright.

The current President has proposed ideas that seek to combine various offices such as AG & SoIA, and has acknowledged to me personally that it is difficult to put active bodies in cabinet positions. From my prior two terms, I agree: appointed positions have less appeal in this game than elected offices, and so they can easily be ignored by those who hold them.

Nevertheless, I am generally a good judge of character and will seek to put the best people in the right positions. If an office provides little to no intrinsic value and consistently fails to attract talent, then we should consider its long-term existence for the sake of the game.

How do you plan to address gun violence?

In my opinion, federal policy is necessary to counter the epidemic of gun violence. Regional policies only provide so much benefit given their limited jurisdiction; it's much easier to keep illegal firearms from crossing sovereign borders than it is crossing regional boundaries. The Gun Control Act of 2017 began to address this issue, but vested enforcement in the hands of the Regions - and did not go far enough to ensure adherence. The Lincoln Universal Background Check Act is a good template from which to begin.

I believe in the notion of strengthening universal background checks and requiring every seller to verify that every buyer is in fact allowed to purchase a weapon - whether it's a private sale or not. Technology is a fabulous thing and allows us to make this both free and easily accessible to all in this day and age via a combination of phone-based and internet-based verification systems.

With that being said, I will oppose overly complex or intrusive policies relating to firearms. Unfortunately, I had to abstain from Lincoln's most recent gun control bill, due to the fact that it contained too many provisions that were either unconstitutional or too broad in my view to survive a court challenge.

What policies do you support to address climate change?

As mentioned above, we are going to research the feasibility of carbon taxes to see what is possible. It is my view (post-Reset) that we have kicked the can too far down the road to avoid most of the consequences of this disastrous dilemma. This is why I am so fervent about investing in space exploration and dramatically increasing our budget for these endeavors. Even if we managed to rein in the worst of climate change, our planet is one of limited resources and space; sooner or later, this major challenge (leaving Earth) awaits us. I believe we should embrace it sooner rather than later, given it is a non-negotiable reality.

Unfortunately, I am aware of no post-Reset federal law addressing climate change in a substantive manner, which is one of the key tenets in my campaign platform. One major overhaul we could pursue with congressional agreement is a massive public sector energy infrastructure, using only clean energy methods for power generation. Such a system could be built on year after year, ultimately allowing us to power (at minimum) all residential needs in Atlasia with clean, renewable power - and in a much shorter time-frame than will occur via the private sector.

We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?

I hate to brag, but literally the only reason we're here now having this discussion is because of me; I literally birthed a new game from my girthy loins! Unlike my primary opponent, I've proven that I'm willing to put in the bare minimum by campaigning publicly and addressing voters' concerns as they are raised. It is my belief that peoples' tenures tend to reflect their campaign efforts.

I've built strong coalitions before that helped save this game, and I believe we are facing such a situation once again. I've never let this game down when it mattered - and I wouldn't be running if I wasn't gravely concerned about where we're heading at the moment.