Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 06, 2015, 03:19:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 232
76  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Forum Community Board Post-Update on: May 06, 2015, 02:16:13 pm
snoozefest with Jeff Brown gone
77  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: The Ford Legacy Family on: May 05, 2015, 09:27:39 pm
Maybe Ford can stop the madness. Smiley
78  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Irony Oremine on: May 03, 2015, 02:19:17 pm
So, um... who are you again?

79  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Regional Governments / Re: NE1: North East Surplus Act on: May 02, 2015, 09:34:50 pm
We got rid of the requirement to appropriate budget windfalls to the Disaster Relief Fund for good reason. We used to have that and it just resulted in billions of dollars being tied up.
80  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Which poster is the previous poster imitating? on: May 02, 2015, 09:15:03 pm

Just watched another episode of Beefcake Bake-off! They have some cute guys in that kitchen. Today they made some delicious meatball grinders, with some onions and marinara sauce (who doesn't enjoy a good topping every now and then? Tongue) All in all, the meat looked pretty tasty, and the food didn't look bad either. #BonAppetit
81  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: May 01, 2015, 08:34:25 pm
Rooting for Laxalt! Paleoconservatism FTW! Cheesy

Always good to have another reader. Smiley Although it should be noted that Laxalt is quite hawkish in this timeline.
82  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of SuperCuts on: May 01, 2015, 06:12:37 pm
I usually go there when I need a trim. It's fine. And there are better substitutes for interesting personality traits than bitching about chains, FTR.

Well, you suck then.

OK. Any reason why I should go to some hepcat barber shop just to get the same exact trim I'd otherwise get, cupcake?

And no, interesting people can point out how lame and tasteless this country is anymore.

I wasn't implying that interesting people can't complain about chains. I was just pointing out that you've repeatedly used it as a crutch, in lieu of saying something interesting.

I don't see your point.

My point is that perhaps if you hadn't taken 9300 posts to repeat the same three* (unoriginal) thoughts over and over again since 2004, I might not be passing stones on this "contribution." Seriously, next thing you know you'll be using some lame Olive Garden joke as a fall back.

Have fun in the future when Olive Garden is your only option to go out for an Eye-talian dinner.

*1. dae think Republicans suck? lmao
2. /r/euphoric atheism
3. LOL opebo!
83  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of SuperCuts on: April 30, 2015, 11:15:15 pm
I usually go there when I need a trim. It's fine. And there are better substitutes for interesting personality traits than bitching about chains, FTR.
84  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 29, 2015, 12:25:29 am
TIME - Presidential nominees spar
September 19th, 1988

Ho'kee comes out swinging

Several nights ago, the three major presidential hopefuls debated in Wilmington, Delaware. In a contentious election with a middling economy and a foreign policy crisis, it was bound to be a heated debate; and the participants lived up to the expectations. President Bentsen, who found himself with an impromptu lead, did his best to maintain his lead. By contrast, Areus Ho'kee took nearly every debate question as an opportunity to criticize his opponents. He had been sitting comfortable on a 100 electoral vote lead over the President, which had been erased once Laxalt achieved the Working Man's Party's nomination for President.

Some wondered whether Ho'kee would be able to maintain his composure for this debate. This is his first national election, and the Speaker had been known for his intemperance behind the scenes. However, any frustration he had did not spill over into the debate, as he deftly laid blows on his opponents: he held Bentsen's feet to the fire on the issues of abortion and campaign finance, while eviscerating Paul Laxalt on the question of the WMP convention leaks. As polling after the debate reflects, Ho'kee did what was necessary to put his campaign back into contention.

Laxalt slips

When Paul Laxalt had clinched the Working Man's Party nomination and started getting included in presidential polls, he made a huge splash; polling double-digits nationally, nearly leading in four different states (Idaho, Nevada, Alabama, and Utah), while also dragging Republican Areus Ho'kee from a 100 electoral vote lead down to a big deficit. Without a presidential nominee, the Working Man's Party had polled 8% of the vote in midterm elections, electing two Senators and a handful of Representatives. With a polished standard-bearer and strong national presence in Senator Paul Laxalt, they were poised to do much better. Most pundits wrote off Republicans' chances at winning the Presidency, and many predicted that their tenuous control of Congress would be eradicated, making Charlie Wilson Speaker of the House.

However, association with the Working Man's Party soon proved to be a millstone. The Working Man's Party Convention was presented to be a professional, clean-cut affair run by political veteran Davis Griffith. However, bootlegged recordings of the affair showed that there was potential voter fraud, and a brawl on the convention floor that would be a handful for most riot police teams. This helped set a narrative that the Working Man's Party was less of a legitimate party and more of a grab bag of unstable ideologues and extremists.

What's worse for the Laxalt campaign is the fact that the chaos on the convention floor may not be the most damaging aspect of the convention leak. An activist by the name of Lawrence Ponder gave a speech on behalf of David Duke, who nearly captured the Working Man's Party nomination. Initially David Duke was just a footnote in the endless index of third-party candidates. However, investigative reporting and the additional attention from these leaks revealed that David Duke had past involvement in the Ku Klux Klan, a fact which was heavily used in the ground game of the Areus Ho'kee campaign. Laxalt repudiated Duke in numerous venues, but regardless, this fact was used as a cudgel by Areus Ho'kee, both on the debate stage and on the campaign trail.

Senate races to watch

This rollercoaster of a presidential election has dominated most of the election discussion this year. However, one element that has been overlooked are the congressional elections. House elections are anybody's guess, but Senate elections can sometimes be considered a statewide referendum on Washington D.C. Despite a large windfall in 1986, Republicans only regained control of the Senate due to the temporary defections of George McGovern and Scott Westman. Republicans have been favored for most of this cycle, but it would only take one or two election losses for control of the Senate to shift to the Democrats.

Arizona: Dennis DeConcini has held office since 1977, and won reelection in 1982 with nearly two-thirds of the vote, despite running in a Republican state in a mildly Republican election. Dennis DeConcini is a conservative Senator, and has voted against his party on numerous issues. At first glance, this is one race that would make Republicans hedge their bets and pass up on. These numbers belie reality of DeConcini's situation, however. His victory in 1976 was against the controversial Sam Steiger, who had a checkered public record and had emerged from a tough primary. In 1982, he was running against Evan Mecham, who had had long been considered a lightning rod for controversy, and had already established his credentials as a perennial candidate with several failed bids for office.

Taking into account these factors, this race has potential to be a sleeper. His opponent is Republican Jim Kolbe, a two-term Representative who has voted with the Mavericks and has generally supported Speaker Ho'kee's initiatives. Considering his opposition to the Iran War and moderate voting record, he could attract voters who are dissatisfied with DeConcini's conservative record. The Working Man's Party's candidate in this is Wayne "Ten Hawks" Smith, a conservative radio host who clings to his dubious Native American heritage.

Maine: This is possibly the most intriguing entry on this list. Presidential polls show that Ho'kee is a safe bet to carry this state. However, local polls and internals show a much closer match when voters are given the choice between incumbent Thad O'Connor and former Governor James Brennan. O'Connor, who was elected to this seat by plurality in 1982, has not done much campaigning. On the other hand, Brennan has been touting his independence from the Democratic leadership and blasted O'Connor on his absenteeism, while also touting his own record as Governor. Polls show a dead-heat here.

Montana: Scott Westman has had problems with the Democratic Party since 1980. While he coasted to reelection in 1982, the open secret of his personal life has been well-known by insiders but has been considered a political untouchable. Normally a Democrat in Montana would be considered dead on arrival, given Ho'kee's likely coattails, but Republicans have made minimal effort here and Westman has done a great deal to distance himself from President Bentsen. Westman is narrowly favored here.

Michigan: Polls here show that incumbent Mic Ceriel has a fair lead. However, the instability in Detroit and general volatility in polling makes this race an honorable mention. Mic Ceriel's response to the riots in Detroit were outright tone-deaf. Meanwhile, the Democratic nominee is Coleman Young, current Mayor of Detroit. While the leaks from the Working Man's Party Convention have been damaging to its party, Christian Mattingly remains the most articulate and polished of its nominees, making this seat the most potential WMP pick-up outside of the usual suspects.

Ohio: Had Paul Pfeifer run for reelection, this wouldn't have made the list. However, Pfeifer is retiring after one term, and Republican nominee Buz Lukens has been plagued in campaign finance and personal scandals since winning a four-way primary contest. His opponent, Democrat James Traficant, has run a populist campaign focused on Luken's ethics problems, as well as bucking his own party on the corruption probe. Polls show Traficant ahead by an average of eight points, but Republican coattails could save this seat.

Texas: James "Fergie" Garner won here six years ago due to a rift in the Democratic Party, where half of the party rallied behind the liberal Harold Barefoot Sanders, while the other half defected to former General William Walker. Since then, Texas Democrats implemented a run-off provision for Senate elections, sometimes referred to as the "Garner Rule." Senator Garner faces a steeper challenge this time around, with WMP Chairman Davis Griffith running against him for reelection, which is almost a surefire way to force Garner into a run-off. He may not be so lucky this time.


September 19th, 1988


Safe Republican: >10%

Slight Republican: 4-9%

Tossup: 3% difference

Slight Democratic: 4-9%

Safe Democratic: >10%

Ho'kee vs Bentsen vs Laxalt

192 - 188 - 158
85  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Era of the New Majority on: April 28, 2015, 09:04:19 am
Announcement: I deleted Emperor Charles's original post re: Democratic wank accusations without seeing his mea culpa a few posts down. I also deleted a few posts that were in response (Brewer and Sanchez.) No infraction points doled out.
86  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Northeast Voting Booth: Presidential Pardon and Electoral Reform Amendments on: April 27, 2015, 06:57:20 pm
Aye on both
87  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Do you hate white people? on: April 27, 2015, 05:05:14 pm

Jesus Christ dude.
88  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Northeast Voting Booth: Fairness in Cabinet Obligations Amendment on: April 24, 2015, 04:02:37 pm
89  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 22, 2015, 09:00:18 pm
Solid debate. Looking forward to the results. Were the results of the WMP convention made public? If not, then how has Hokey not been taken to task for knowing Duke's take of the delegates?

Thanks. Smiley I spent a lot of time writing/editing this, so I hope it flows organically.

As for the Working Man's Party results, several states conducted primaries, so results about raw votes for Duke would be available, in reference to Ho'kee's claim:

I don't know how you can present yourself as mainstream when over a third of your political party voted for a former Klansman. I reiterate, this move of yours is simply one out of spite and opportunism.

That being said, Ho'kee had the recordings anonymously leaked to the media a week or two before the debate. I didn't cover this in an entry prior to the debate, since I thought that it would flow better if I mentioned it after the fact, rather than having two entries discussing the leaks. It'll (hopefully) make sense after the next update. Tongue
90  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Joe Republic Bureau of Funny Post Archival on: April 22, 2015, 07:34:12 pm
They lose twice to Buffalo and once to Philadelphia and Dallas, leaving a 12-4 record, AFC East title, 1st round bye, and defeat in the AFC Divisional Round (to Cleveland/San Diego/Buffalo).

The Browns aren't actually that bad..they're the team that'll pull an upset or two early, and fizzle out in the AFC Title Game.

The Browns haven't had a winning season since 2007. Their starting QB is Josh McCown, who wasn't good enough for the Bucs.
91  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Joe Republic Bureau of Funny Post Archival on: April 22, 2015, 07:05:24 pm
They lose twice to Buffalo and once to Philadelphia and Dallas, leaving a 12-4 record, AFC East title, 1st round bye, and defeat in the AFC Divisional Round (to Cleveland/San Diego/Buffalo).
92  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Patriots are defending Super Bowl champs. Predict their 2015 record on: April 22, 2015, 03:32:58 pm
13-3 (sane Patriot hater)


That's a tragically easy schedule. Jacksonville? Tennessee? Hell, Indy were the divisional champs and they still got routed by the Patriots (twice.)

Buffalo could surprise us, considering they have a great defense and Rex Ryan now, but they still don't have a QB.
93  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 22, 2015, 12:48:33 am
Moderator: This will be the last question, and perhaps a controversial one. What makes your opponents unfit for the Presidency?

Laxalt: Scoop Jackson was elected in 1980 with a landslide, and had control of Congress for all six years of his Presidency. Throughout all of his Presidency, we had a middling foreign policy and a poor domestic policy. Despite being a standard-bearer of labor, the decline of industry in America went unabated, except for whatever his party financed through legislative decree. Despite being in favor of a strong national defense, we entered a war that we've yet to win.

At the same token, I don't think that we can allow the Republican Party to win this election on fourth down. Richard Nixon gave us oil shortages, defeat in Vietnam, and rampant inflation that plagues us to this day. As if that weren't enough, he saddled the country with the Watergate scandal and permanently damaged the credibility of the office of President. I see shades of Richard Nixon in the current Republican nominee: dirty politicking, an operation of systematic character assassination, and wishy-washy political stances when convenient. As a lifelong Republican, I can't say that they deserve another bite at the apple.

Ho'kee: As for the incumbent, I don't doubt his moral character, and he's had quite the challenge hoisted upon him: his predecessor had a chronically mismanaged diplomacy and the economic approach of a sixth-grader reading about Keynes. However, the reality is that he was part of those administrations. If President Jackson hadn't consulted him in some way when making those decisions, then he was irrelevant as a Vice President. If he had, then Bentsen can be considered party to those decisions. Whatever the case may be, he hasn't put forth any sort of vision that wasn't a watered down version of those proposals and seems content to work at whatever tempo my Congress sets. He should be relieved of office.

The other alternative on this debate stage is a craven opportunist who's carrying the banner of some fringe party whose platform consists of bigotry, pessimism, and spite. As far as policy is concerned, he's well outside the mainstream of America on several key issues. The less that's said about him, the better.

Laxalt: I can't let that go unchallenged. Care to explain your comments, Mr. Speaker?

Ho'kee: It's worth noting that you tried to gain the Republican nomination four years ago, and that you supported the failed campaign of Bill Armstrong. Both times, your efforts were juked by the Mavericks, and throwing the election is the only recourse you have. Also, this is a political party that nearly nominated David Duke. I don't know how you can present yourself as mainstream when over a third of your political party voted for a former Klansman. I reiterate, this move of yours is simply one out of spite and opportunism.

Laxalt: Smug and self-serving as always. Hatfield's success was impressive, but I don't know what you had to do with that. The charge that I sought the Working Man's Party nomination for personal gain isn't true. The fact of the matter is the Republican Party has been co-opted by fleet-footed 'Mavericks' of dubious political orientation, such as yourself. The party that was once champion of national unity and patriotism has now fallen plague to the forces of surrender and dissent. As a Republican nominee, your indifference to the decline of American industry is repulsive. I've joined the Working Man's Party not out of a wish to be relevant, but because I believe both political parties have failed this country.

Ho'kee: Senator Laxalt, would you vote for David Duke?

Laxalt: No. What kind of question is that?

Ho'kee: Moments ago, you claimed that you supported the Working Man's Party for its virtues and not for your own self interest. The other possible nominee was David Duke. So, if you weren't the nominee for the Working Man's Party, would you vote for David Duke?

Laxalt: No.

Ho'kee: So, you wouldn't vote for the Working Man's Party nominee if you didn't win the nomination.

Laxalt: This is ridiculous. Whether or not I were the nominee, I would still vote for Working Man's Party candidates running in Nevada. I would do my best to ensure that the Working Man's Party had a viable nominee. To suggest that I would vote for a member of the Ku Klux Klan is guilt by association.

Bentsen: Unlike my opponents, I'll try to be quick here. My main opponent, Speaker Ho'kee, likes to have things both ways. When asked about his economic agenda, he's quick to cite what we've worked together on for Social Security. When asked why he's running for President, he criticizes my handling of the economy. When asked about our immigration problem, he offers solutions, but has yet to introduce any bills in the House. He decries my foreign policy, but has yet to send or even propose a signable bill that would alter our diplomacy.

As for Paul Laxalt, he's a conscientious fellow, but he lacks a real vision outside of populism and a nebulous platform. In the unlikely event that he was elected, he would have a difficult time putting forth an agenda and an even more difficult time getting it passed. Simply put, he has no ability to govern and is unlikely to carry any electoral votes. For those supposed "working men" who are looking for an alternative to the Republican Party, I ask that you consider the Democrats.
94  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 22, 2015, 12:47:51 am
Moderator: A few months ago, the United States reached a deal with the Panamanian government on the matter of the Canal Zone. President Bentsen, you were at the forefront of these negotiations? Can you defend your diplomacy here? To the other two candidates, would either of you honor this treaty?

Bentsen: This was the best deal possible for the American people. The integrity of the canal system is paramount; without it, American shippers have to sail around the entire South American continent for each naval cargo. I don't think it takes many words to illustrate how catastrophic that would be for our industry, especially with fuel costs right now. Secondly, this deal preserves American ownership of the Panama Canal until the Soviet Union is defeated. At a time where control of the Canal was in question, it's a significant accomplishment that we were able to retain control at a time where the Soviet Union has set up shop in Cuba and was trying to expand to Nicaragua.

Laxalt: I don't have much positive to say about this deal. The Panama Canal exists as a monument to the spirit of American Exceptionalism in the early 20th century: where other countries failed, we persevered. We braved the elements and secured a lucrative shipping route that helped connect America's east and west coasts. Now, more than ever, the Panama Canal is a vital strategic position against foreign threats.

The President has tried to pass this off as a victory for America, but the reality is that we've granted amnesty toward hundreds of people involved in the damaging of the Canal, as well as those who may have killed American servicemen. How many of these people could be communists? How many of them could be planting bombs on the Canal months from now? As if that weren't enough, this deal cedes control of the Canal to the government of Panama at some point. Losing control of the Canal was completely avoidable and the fact that this administration gave it away so easily is disappointing.

Bentsen: I didn't give it away easily. Provisions of the treaty dictate that the United States maintain control of the Canal until the Soviet Union is dissolved; in other words, when we've successfully defeated the Communist threat. At some point in time Panama has to have full sovereignty of its land. I understand that pardoning combatants in Panama is a tough pill to swallow, but it's in everybody's best interest that we restore our relationship with Panama so that we have another friend in South America.

Ho'kee: I disagree with the President's handling of the Panama situation. While I too would have sought peace, I think that it is the right of the people of Panama to own the Canal. The deal signed by the President is essentially the status quo, and I'm concerned that we'll run into the same problems of terrorism down the road. That being said, as President I would honor the terms of the treaty until there was a problem with the Canal.

Moderator: Staying on topic, I'd like to move on toward energy. Gas prices are at record highs. What would each of you have to say to everyday Americans that are struggling to make ends meet, and can barely afford to arrive where they must work?

Ho'kee: High fuel prices do not benefit the American consumer. They make transporation of both goods and people more expensive, which increases the cost of living. I will categorically say that my administration would never purposefully engineer high gas prices for the means of promoting a certain lifestyle. High gas prices will not be a facet of a prospective Ho'kee administration. That being said, I think that we need to be conscious of the environmental impact of our current transportation system, and we need to realize that we have a finite amount of fuel on this Earth. While our eyes may be as big as our vehicles, our oil supply isn't as large as our imagination.

This is precisely why I support the President's waiver of tariffs on Japan. Japanese cars have proven to have better fuel economies, which will liberate the American consumer. Less fuel consumption will be better for gas prices in the long run, while also being better for the environment.

Laxalt: John, this is why a Ho'kee administration would be bad for America: he has not been honest with the American public. He purports to oppose an increase in the price of gas per gallon. However, Ho'kee also led the opposition in Congress last session with regards to expanding domestic oil drilling. Ho'kee and his "Mavericks" have come out against many of the domestic energy projects and nuclear power plants out west.

Speaker Ho'kee also flamboyantly supports the fire sale of our auto industry to the Japanese, simply due to a short-term spike in gas prices. These Japanese cars are smaller than American made cars, and could be more fatal in collisions. Besides, this instance of wanton free trade could result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in Motor City, which has been in its death throes under this administration. How much is saving $500 on that Toyota worth, America? Is it worth death upon impact, America? Is it worth the death of our auto industry and the loss of jobs?

Ho'kee: That is a mischaracterization of my position, Senator. I did vote against the 1985 bill that increased domestic oil drilling, but that is because the bill in question was a short-sighted solution to a long-term problem. I support domestic drilling, but we ought to be mindful of the potential dangers that comes hand-in-hand with unfettered, lax-regulation drilling.

Moderator: Mr. Speaker, I know you want to respond but we've got to let the President have his input on the matter.

Bentsen: Thanks, John. It's true that I waived tariffs on Japan. It's also true that Japan's cars have been doing a number on The Big Three. However, the reality of capitalism is that The Big Three have to compete in a modern market if they want to be worth their salt. I'm optimistic about the American auto industry, and I think that our cars can adapt to the increased price of gas. I have faith that if our cars adapt to the modern market, our consumers and our auto industry workers win.

I signed off on domestic oil drilling because I believe that we need to put the public interest first and foremost. The Soviet Union depends heavily on domestic oil production, and that domestic industry can just as easily be turned into an international weapon against us. From a national security standpoint, it's important that we have our own source of oil. It's also important that we explore alternative sources of fuel, which is why I supported President Jackson's initiative that led to the expansion of nuclear power plants.

Moderator: How do each of you feel about the recent findings of Ericson Snell's campaign finance probe? Mr. President, since you are subject to this, we'll let you go first.

Bentsen: Mr. Moderator, that's a loaded question if I ever heard one.

Ho'kee: Why is that? It concerns your administration.

Moderator: Mr. Speaker, please don't speak out of turn. Mr. President, you can either explain why you think the question is loaded, or you can decline to respond.

Bentsen: Because I'm not the subject. At the worst, this "investigation" has to do with my predecessor, Jackson. As to the question, I think the investigation should be allowed to go on if there's been actual evidence of wrongdoing, but I have yet to see it despite years of this thing going on.

Ho'kee: The reason that this investigation has been going on for years is because of the stonewalling that you and your predecessor have done, and the tortured degree to which these transfers were covered up. Audits of the Illinois Democratic Party showed it received as much as two million dollars from defense contractors through various channels. It's no coincidence that Illinois was a swing state in 1984. Snell's investigation has uncovered similar irregularities in Washington and California, both competitive states. The implication here is that Scoop Jackson was running for reelection on an unpopular foreign policy bankrolled by a handful of wealthy contractors.

Regardless of the policy implications, the fact is that this is potentially a criminal circumvention of donation limits set in the 1970's. For you to dismiss this in such a cavalier way suggests that you're unfit for office, either because you're covering something up or because you simply don't care.

Laxalt: As President, this is an issue that I would not pursue. While the details are murky, the fact of the matter is that we haven't come to a firm conclusion despite several years of investigation. Ho'kee and his clique seem content to drag this on for as long as it takes, to try and keep a millstone on the President's neck. However, even under the worst of circumstances, the hypothetical culprit would be President Jackson, who is now deceased. You can't prosecute the dead. America needs to move on from this issue.
95  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 22, 2015, 12:43:51 am
Moderator: Moving on to the next topic. While not often discussed, a looming reality is that we have as many as seven million illegal aliens residing in the United States. What solution, if any, would each of you propose?

Ho'kee: The fact of the matter is that our immigration system does not comport with the reality that this decade has brought before us. Why would people want to illegally immigrate to this country? The obvious answer seems to be employment opportunity. Nearly a century ago, we instituted a quota system predicated on keeping people out of this country. Despite laws such as those, there seems to be a burgeoning tax base that remains in the shadows because our immigration system is stuck in Woodrow Wilson's administration. These people work under the table because our government won't give them the proper avenues to become citizens and pay taxes.

A Ho'kee government would pursue the following solution: greatly raise the annual quotas, eliminate the sponsorship requirement, and grant amnesty to most illegal aliens after a background check. America is a melting pot, and we have to welcome this next generation of entrepreneurs into the United States.

Laxalt: I disagree with the Speaker in the strongest terms possible. The reality is that we are in a global conflict with a transnational threat: the Soviet Union. As the moderator alluded to, we have an illegal alien population estimated to be seven million. How many of those do you think are prospective revolutionaries? There are plenty of examples of nations being turned into Soviet satellites due to covert invasion. Speaker Ho'kee's proposal is dangerous: how do we background check people who ostensibly have no background? How do we know that a budding young bracero is not actually a saboteur?

Furthermore, even if these people are otherwise innocent, what is the compelling argument for amnesty? You claim that these people are the next generation of entrepreneurs, but the reality is that we still have an unemployment rate of seven percent. The narrative that you've set is that these people are working high-demand jobs and that we have a shortfall in labor, but the reality is that employers are simply paying these people under the table. Real reform would be cutting red tape and getting rid of onerous regulations that make it impossible for everyday Americans to be employed. And, last but not least, build a real fence on the border.

Ho'kee: Senator Laxalt, I find your remarks to be unsettling. Without any factual basis, your paranoid rhetoric has impugned the character of thousands of residents in the United States, suggesting that they might be part of some Soviet scheme to take over the United States. Furthermore, what is your proposed solution to our illegal alien situation? Merely deport them?

Laxalt: It may be hyperbolic, but you don't have a way of disproving that statement. Without cracking down on our border security, we have no idea what the heck is going on down there. Furthermore, I do think we ought to be deporting illegal aliens to set an example. If we were to grant amnesty and turn a blind eye to known illegal aliens, then that would set a poor example to law enforcement and only encourage recidivism.

Ho'kee: You've brought life back to Joe McCarthy and made his pallid cheeks flush with blood. Not only have you implied that millions of people living here could be communist spies, but you've also advocated a systematic deportation of them. Do you have any idea how much money that would cost the INS? How much of an invasion of privacy would that be? Not only would you be bringing a Gestapo to the United States, but you'd also be erecting a Berlin Wall.

Moderator: We have time concerns, and we have to move on, Senator. President Bentsen?

Bentsen: The status quo is a bit of a benign tumor, but one that still needs treatment. There is a significant illegal alien population in the United States, but it's foolish and impolitic to suggest that we could deport that many people. That would be a logistical nightmare, and inhumane to boot. A sensible immigration fix would entail a citizenship test, strengthening up our border, and some liberalization of our existing immigration laws. But the proposals offered by both of my opponents seem to simply be impulsive. We need neither the red-baiting of Laxalt nor the lawlessness of Ho'kee.

Moderator: It is well known by America that our nation has been embroiled in a conflict in Iran for the better part of a decade. Withdrawal may cause a loss of credibility, but indefinite occupation may not be feasible. What would each of you do about the Iran situation?

Bentsen: The situation in Iran is complex. Part of the reason why support for our war effort has floundered is due to the tenor of political discourse in this country. There are some who would stop just short of eradication of the Iranian people, which is neither humane nor feasible. There are others, however, who think that we ought to swear off the endeavor outright, and surrender the interests we have at stake in a country that is pivotal in the current geopolitical situation. A measured approach is what will work best, and I will assess the situation once more when the new Congress swears in.

Ho'kee: Mr. President, with all due respect, why would you waste all of that time speaking and not say anything?

While your response may sound nuanced, it's merely vacuous. Let me spell this out for the American people: when the President says, "a measured approach is what will work best," what he really means is that we are to spend ten more years on this fool's errand of a war -

Moderator: Speaker Ho'kee, I ask that you respect the rules agreed upon for this debate, and discuss the issues at hand with civility and respect.

Ho'kee: Apologies, John. However, I will affirm my previously mentioned point: President Bentsen has no intentions of getting us out of this war. Billions of dollars spent does not equal success. Over seventeen thousand deaths does not equal success. Operation Black Gold does not equal success. These are all policies pursued by the previous Democratic administrations, both of which Bentsen has served in some capacity. My fellow Americans, if you have not lost a son in this conflict, then be mindful of your grandsons when you vote this November.

Bentsen: The Speaker should consider himself lucky that he does not have the pressure of the Presidency. I suspect that he would lose most of his ideals quickly. While his rhetoric is passionate, it does not square up with the reality of the situation: the Senate approved legislation extending continual funding for the effort until 1991. The Senate legislation has created a bipartisan panel of experts whose job is to advise on the current situation. I'm acting completely within the parameters of existing statute.

Laxalt: These men seem to be tripping over themselves for the sake of surrender. We must be mindful of the hundreds of deaths of Americans in our embassy, which ought to be treated as an attack on American soil. Speaker Ho'kee correctly pointed out that tens of thousands of Americans have died in this war, and both he and I know dozens of families in Nevada that have lost loved ones. However, he seems to be willing to throw their sacrifice away and cut and run in the face of danger.

Iran is an investment that so far has brought with it casualties. However, we need to be mindful of the fact that we have crippled the Iranian regime and inflicted a much greater amount of casualties on the enemy. Furthermore, what is the alternative to fighting in Iran? We have already retreated from Vietnam. The Soviets have an outpost in nearby Cuba. Surrendering every global battleground is dangerous, and there may be up to a million casualties if we find ourselves in the position of fighting the Soviets on our own soil. No, we ought to stay the course in Iran and up the ante.
96  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 22, 2015, 12:40:23 am
September 15th, 1988

Moderator: I thank the three candidates for joining me in this exchange of ideas this evening. As candidates, you each owe it to the electorate to articulate and defend your ideas, so that we have an informed electorate. I will start this debate off with the question: Why do you each of you think that you are the most fit to govern?

Ho'kee: I am currently the Speaker of the House. Although the American people repudiated Democrats at the ballot box in 1986, this did not materialize itself in the forthcoming Congress' composition, due to a variety of mitigating factors. Despite that, I managed to cull enough Democratic Representatives to cross party-lines and vote for me as Speaker, for the benefit of the country. I think that alone speaks to my ability to bring both sides of the aisle together for a better America.

In addition to that, one of my proudest achievements has been shepherding through the Roth-Snell bill, which set our Social Security program on a path toward solvency. There were some instances of shared sacrifice, such as an increase in FICA taxes, but this bill also introduced a basic measure of means-testing and normalized our top-marginal tax rates to encourage innovation from our best and brightest. While extremists on either flange of the pot opposed this, we passed this for the good of the country.

Laxalt: I've been a registered Republican for most of my adult life. However, having been fed up with the current trajectories of both parties and our nation's political future, I've seen fit to work with the new political party: the Working Man's Party.

In many respects, I'm a conservative at heart. However, I feel that President Bentsen's executive actions on free trade are tantamount to selling The Big Three to Japan at the lowest bid possible. This is an industry that built the cars necessary for Americans to go West. This is an industry that built the tanks and planes necessary to defeat the forces of fascism. Now, however, we seem all too willing to sacrifice such an institution in order to pay thirty cents less at the gas pump. If elected, I would do what I can to revitalize this industry.

In addition, both of these parties are entrenched in the political system. I believe that our servicemen are the best and brighest that this country has to offer. However, the recent revelations about defense industry donations toward the Democratic campaigns demonstrate that we need fundamental campaign finance reform. If elected, I would work toward expanding ballot access toward third parties and placing actual limits on corporate donations. Neither of these men have an interest in doing that. In short, I believe I'm the most fit to govern because I am not bought or paid for by any interest except that of the American people.

Bentsen: Admittedly, I have a tough case to present before the American people. The economic indicators of our country are not great. Inflation has been a problem. We've struggled with our foreign policy over the past eight years. In spite of these difficulties that face our country, I think I am most qualified to govern this country for the next four years. As Vice President, I inherited some problems, but I've done my best to work towards solutions.

Our social welfare problems were facing big problems when I assumed office. My predecessor's administration had been ballooning the deficit to cover the shortfall. I worked with a Republican Congress to reach a reform that preserved Social Security without gutting benefits, like my opponents would like to. I worked toward a solution in the Panama Canal not because it was politically popular, but because it was the most equitable deal. I eliminated tariffs on imports not because I want to see our industry perish, but because I want to see our industry compete and our consumers benefit. In short, I'm asking for four more years because I am the only candidate on stage that will govern independently of public opinion.

Moderator: Moving to our first question, which is an important issue to many people. In 1973, the Supreme Court recognized the right to abortion in the infamous Roe vs. Wade ruling. Recently, the Wyde Amendment, which would have heavily restricted abortions, was defeated in Congress. Where do each of you stand on the matter of abortion?

Bentsen: It seems fool-hardy to me to enact a blanket ban on abortion. The reality is that the economically disadvantaged can not afford children, and there are some instances where abortion may be necessary for either medical or financial purposes. I don't think that it promotes the public interest to institute a blanket ban on abortions, as that will only force women into the shadows and into black markets. At the same time, after a certain period of gestation, it seems apparent that there is a human life at stake. The Roe issue gives us a bit of a legal abstraction, and I would favor leaving this issue to local governments in general.

Ho'kee: While the President claims to be pro-choice on these matters, his claim to the mantle is tenuous at best. Sure, he has bobbed and weaved just now in an effort to play both sides of the card. However, let's analyze the reality of the issue: in 1983, the aforementioned Wyde Amendment was sponsored. This was a constitutional amendment that would have severely hindered the availability of abortions. This amendment was sponsored by a Democratic Senator, Patton Wyde, and supported by the Democratic Majority Leader, Robert Byrd. The Democratic President, Scoop Jackson, supported it.

Who was the Democratic Vice President? None other than President Bentsen. Bentsen was second in the line of succession during the debate over the Wyde Amendment, and was a non-entity. So even if President Bentsen purports to be pro-choice, I think we ought to examine the realities of the situation.

Bentsen: Speaker Ho'kee is obfuscating the truth. While I was not excessively vocal in my opposition to the bill, I did state it on the few times I was asked. For somebody who has been in Washington for so long, you don't seem to understand the realities of it, Mr. Ho'kee. Protesting a bill that I am in no capacity to effect would simply have divided my administration and my party, and played right into your party's hands. I'm more focused on the big picture, and will continue to be as President.

Ho'kee: This is not the leadership that America needs. Straight from the President's mouth: when he was second in line to the Presidency, one of the most important and influential positions in America, Bentsen chose to stay quiet on this issue because he didn't want it to come up during dinner at the next Democratic outing. If you lacked the courage to confront Jackson on the issue, Mr. President, do you have the courage to look into that camera and confront the thousands of women who would be forced into the darkest of back alleys?

Bentsen: Setting the rest of that aside, do you really think that the Vice President is one of the most influential positions? That's ridic-

Moderator: Mr. President, I'm sorry, but we've got to let Senator Laxalt have an answer. You will have an opportunity at the next question.

Laxalt: You won't have any equivocations from me. I wholeheartedly support the rights of the unborn and would endorse any measure to expand protection to them. Although I think there ought to be more nuance than the Wyde Amendment allowed for, you would definitely see something similar advocated for by a prospective Laxalt Administration.
97  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Dust In The Wind on: April 20, 2015, 09:11:58 pm
Joy to you: 1988

Areus Ho'kee and Ericson Snell were relaxing at the former's estate with a cadre of friends and associates. These gatherings were usually full of merriment and flamboyance, as Areus Ho'kee had met much success with his presidential run and other political endeavors. However, now that he had run into trouble, it seemed as if the energy had been sucked out of the room. Ho'kee and a few others looked toward a large television in the corner. "The latest set of polling shows that President Bentsen has reversed his deficit and opened up a large lead on Speaker of the House Areus Ho'kee..." said a reporter. Some of his friends looked mournfully at Ho'kee, as if the news were a funeral dirge.

Ho'kee soberly quaffed his glass of wine, saying nothing. Finally, Ericson Snell spoke of the elephant in the room and broke the uncomfortable silence. "I warned you that we'd have trouble with the Working Man's Party. Now Bentsen has the lead again. At the very least, you could have gone with Bill Armstrong over Lee Dreyfus. I think Laxalt would only be pulling three or four percent if we hadn't alienated so many people," he said. Ho'kee turned to look at Snell. "Are you suggesting that all of this is a waste? That I shouldn't be running?" he asked. "No, of course not. But I do think that a difficult tact would be appreciated. Gingrich or Armstrong wouldn't be struggling like this, I don't think," Snell responded.

Suddenly, someone rose up from the other end of the room and interjected."So basically what you're saying is, 'Areus Ho'kee shouldn't run.' You say that Areus has alienated many people - how so? His ideas, where he has campaigned, and how he has campaigned, have all been consistent with Maverick values; values that we all espouse, unless I'm mistaken. As Mavericks, we all oppose corruption, oppose reactionaries, and oppose the sort of macho chest beating that has been the de jure foreign policy of this country. If we win without campaigning on these values, we're just going to run into problems later on. Minds have to be changed.

Besides, you really think that Gingrich or Armstrong would be having an easier time? Newt Gingrich ran on a nebulous platform of 'more space exploration' and 'tax reform' while openly saying he wouldn't vet the beliefs of his Supreme Court nominees. That's to say nothing of the fact that he was up to his waist in personal scandals. As for Armstrong, he was on the wrong side of most issues and would be a step back from the progress we've made since 1980. Really, what do we have to be upset about? That a grab bag of lunatics are withholding their support from us?"

The speaker was Abimelech Delroy, the young Mayor of New York City. He won in an upset over Mayor Ed Koch three years ago, running in part on liberal dissatisfaction from his tough-on-crime policies and also against a nationally unpopular Democratic Party. Areus Ho'kee had always been doting on him, in a way Thad hadn't even seen towards his wife. The handsome Mayor had received notoriety for going against the grain of popular opinion and implementing rehabilitation programs to combat the spread of crack cocaine, which had mixed results. On the other hand, Mayor Delroy had also spearheaded an initiative to rehabilitate abandoned houses to be converted into micro-units. He was considered even-odds to win reelection.

Areus Ho'kee looked toward Abimelech with a prideful smile. Just then, Thad opened the door, cutting the debate short. "He's back!" exclaimed Areus. Between the melee at the convention floor and his last minute flight, Thad definitely looked a little worse for wear. However, he had what was most important: audio recordings of the Workign Man's Party's chaotic convention. Areus ran up to Thad, cupping his cheeks between his hands. "You made it back! Do you have anything?" he gushed. Thad nodded, proffering what he recorded. Areus and a few others listened intently, while his more peripheral guests talked amongst themselves.

At the end, Areus stood up and clapped. "Thad! You've done it!" he exclaimed. "Outright xenophobia and a convention brawl. To say nothing of the fact that a Klansman almost won the nomination of Laxalt's party." Areus looked toward the television with optimism. "There may be hope yet."
98  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: April 2015 At-large Senate Election on: April 19, 2015, 10:25:40 pm
[1] Polnut
[2] Poirot
99  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Ten-Party System on: April 19, 2015, 07:00:26 pm
Here's a more expansive palette if you want to use more than just red and blue:

100  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: Election What Ifs board question on: April 19, 2015, 06:17:17 pm
What exactly is the difference between the election what ifs main board, the past election what ifs, and the alternative elections boards?

I would imagine it's something like:

Main - Timelines
Past - Self explanatory
Alternative - Current or future elections

But it seems that all 3 boards are just a random jumble of everything instead of having any organization.

That's the standard that I've tried to maintain (re: I move election match-ups in the main board to the PWI childboard) but there doesn't seem to be a clear distinction, unfortunately.

I laid out a proposal along the lines of what you suggested a few years ago.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 232

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines