I am not going to say that I didn't wish this debate had at least included a question on the Judiciarl Tenure Amendment and the whole fiasco surrounding the attempted impeachment of all of our Supreme Court. Had that come up, you would have heard a real difference, at least when I made the case against applying term limits to the Supreme Court. I have been planning a speech on this matter for several days, and it would have been up by Saturday had it not been for the fact that we got crapped on by our power company and were left for three days without power. I don't like the idea of bringing greater political considerations into the decisions of the Supreme Court just because we have an activity problem. It raises the risk of possibly causing a situaiton where justice, instead of being equal, will very based on where each Justice is at in terms of his term and what they plan to do next. I helped to pass amendment attaching impeachment to an acitvity standard for the Court and it is my preference to tackle an activity issue such as we have directly, without risking the independence of the court. I wished that issue had been raised in this debate and that would have been my response had it been asked.
Unfortunately, I don't think that my speech or my response in this thread had it been asked would please my distinguished opponent because yes it will likely be of considerable length and there is a reason for that.
I like to be detailed, I like include all the facts, considerations and downsides so that way it isn't just talkings points and instead shows an understanding for the mechanics of policy to be implemented, as well as all the risks and considerations that need to be accounted for to implement a responsible policy. I realize my distinguished opponent wants to discuss a specific set of issues, and nothing else. But the problem is there is another person out there just as demanding and just as narrowly focused, but the difference is that he wants to talk about energy or the environment. I saw a divide on the environment between those that supported a "Carbon tax/Cap-n-trade system" and those who don't. I came down on the latter but unlike many in this debate, I actually offered a specific and detailed alternative, but unfortunately that was another wall of text since it is a complex issue.
As I see it, I don't see myself having to self limit to just technocratic policy on the one hand or ideal based responses and engagement on issues of game reform. This debate isn't the only aspect of this campaign cycle I might add. In the speech I gave to the Federalist convention and in my announcement speech, I called for a popular, bottom up approach to engagement and activity, which was one of the reasons I was one of an insufficient number of Senators to vote for the "Same Day Registration Amendment". I also called for revitalizing and restoring inactive regions. The best way to do that is to bring people in and encourage competition as we have seen in the IDS. The regions that have lacked that kind of ideological and political competition, are the ones who are the most inactive, the Pacific and the Midwest. Now of course we don't want a massive hoarde of people from other regions invading another, or worse strategic registration. There are other risks associated with throwing open the flood gates like that of course, which need to be considered. But it is the best path towards turning around the inactive regions. My distinguished opponent talks about abolishing cabinet positions, and presently, I have introduced the only bill
to do just that with regards to the position of Moderator General.
If you ignore the policy issues entirely, you will in fact run head long right into the very same thing that you complain about, you will have a game where there is not political competition. Sooner or later, your game reforms pass or fail and then you have to ask what then? And just like Purple State discovered in 2010, if you don't have a domestic policy agenda and a willing opposition to it, you won't have much of a discourse at all after that. Political competition on the issues (all of them), is what will bring activity and one important part of that is providing a Conservative alternative on a range of issues like I did on the carbon emissions. As my dinstinguished opponent well knows, Conservatives are under suspicioun of being either ignorant or facist or extremist from the starting gate thanks to the real life stupidity of the movement, hence one more reason for the extra detail on my part. If my distinguished opponent is so concerned about everyone agreeing with each other and being afraid to disagree, then why doesn't he call on his friends on the left to stop demonizing and blacklisting the right in this game, perhaps then you will get more people willing to disagree on the issues. I find that to be a better approach then disengaging from these issues, which will simply cause a self-fullfilling prophecy of there being a lack of debate and disagreement.
I have held several townhalls in my campaign thread open to any ones' questions. If someone wants to ask me about game reform, or reforming regions or any of the issues that my distinguished opponent has raised as being ignored, as well as any of the policy issues, I will gladly do my best to give my opinions and ideas. If time and weather permits, I plan to do a speech on the Supreme Court and Justice as well as one or two more on other topics before the election is held. I plan to continue to do my job as Senator until my term ends, regardless of this campaign cycle, since the people of the IDS elected me for a four month term that is what they are going to get. I have always delayed launching my campaigns until around the beginning of the month of the election just for the purpose of "minimizing the useless politiking" at the expense of governing. I will concede one point to my dinstinguished opponent and that is that I have been here a long time; however, I will disagree with him about the value of what we do in the Senate and contest that I wouldn't be doing this for this long if I didn't think that I had something to contribute with my service to the IDS and an obligation to offer such to the region when I am able to do so. My door always has and it always will be open as long as I represent the IDS. Whether Emperor or private citizen; Federalist, Labor, Liberal, Light, Mustafinist-Komovists or Independent, if you have a concern, by all means, get in touch with me and I will do my best to assist you.
I thank you the voters of Atlasia, my opponent, the other candidates who participated in this debate and His Imperial Highness Sjoyce for hosting this debate and I humbly do ask for your vote in this upcomming election to continue as your Regional Senator.