The Federalist Party: June 2014 Convention (LEADERSHIP DECLARATIONS!) (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 06:48:19 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  The Federalist Party: June 2014 Convention (LEADERSHIP DECLARATIONS!) (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Federalist Party: June 2014 Convention (LEADERSHIP DECLARATIONS!)  (Read 29082 times)
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« on: June 10, 2014, 10:55:41 AM »

I realize that we have been a tad bit quiet this past weekend, but don't worry, we are the watchers on the wall...(wait, wrong fantasy realm?).

I would just like to quickly say we appreciate being considered for the nomination of both the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party. While Dallasfan65 will be soon addressing the Democratic Republican Convention, We will refrain from interfering, out of respect, in the Federalist nomination process unless asked to address the convention by their chair. Should the Federalists vote to nominate our ticket, we would accept the nomination and be ever thankful of their confidence and support.

Should anyone have any questions of where we stand on any policy issue feel free to ask Smiley

Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #1 on: June 11, 2014, 07:09:19 PM »

Federalists -

Given the permission of your Chairman, I will be addressing the Federalist convention tomorrow morning.

Also, Dallasfan65 has responded in our thread to some of the claims made against us in this thread if you'd like to see it. We had hoped that our opponents would give you the same respect that many gave the Labor, TPP, and Democratic Republican conventions.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164259.msg4193658#msg4193658

Best

SirNick

Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2014, 06:42:14 AM »

Friends -

With the blessing of Chairman North Carolina Yankee, we have decided to address the Federalist convention to accept Senator Lumine's nomination of our ticket for consideration of your party's endorsement.

For those of you who don't already know me, I have received the Federalist Party endorsement before. Without going back into the trenches of the archives of Atlasia, I was endorsed for a second term as Governor of the Northeast by the Federalists, and in addition possibly while running for Northeast Assembly.

I appointed now Federalist Senator Goldwater as my Lieutenant Governor during my time as Governor. I championed his Free Enterprise Zones Act --which is now law. The bill sought to it ease regulations for businesses in order to do what they do best in cities all around the Northeast. In addition, I vetoed the Private Sector Job Tenure Act because I thought it would hurt businesses' and I've openly spoken out against Senator TNF's Codetermination Bill.

During my time in the Northeast Assembly I was a bit of a stickler for quality legislation. I still am. If bills did not explain how they were funded, I was likely to vote against it. As Governor, I was fiscally responsible. I passed two budgets. Both kept a surplus. Both invested in infrastructure. Both lowered taxes across the board. We halved the sales tax, and lowered taxes on all income levels.

We also expanded education in the Northeast. Every Northeast resident can now go to college or university for free. I realize this isn't something you would normally bring up to the Federalists, but I am because here's the kicker. The GM report came back and said it was cheaper than the programs the Northeast was using to subsidize college and university education.

Dallasfan and I have both worked across the aisle. We believe that progress is made when we try to involve everyone. People want to be part of the solution, you just have to ask them. Many of you are familiar with Dallasfan due to his long service in Atlasia. He's served as Governor of the Northeast, Chief Judicial Officer, Senator from the Northeast, Senator-at-large and Vice President --to name a few.

Dallasfan has championed transparency in government
. I supported his bill to have police officers wear small cameras on their uniforms. This law not only protected police officers, but it protects citizens by establishing more accountability. And like myself, Dallasfan in his most recent budget lowered taxes again while keeping a surplus.

What I like most about Dallasfan is that, like myself, he is not on ideologue. He has ideas he wants to pursue, but when he sees that it doesn't work, he is not going to push it. We have both said before --if a GM report comes back, and its going to affect people negatively, then we're not going to pursue it. We are realistic and flexible when it comes to public policy. Being flexible doesn't mean we won't fight for our goals --of course we will, but we know when its time to compromise. 

There were some attacks on Dallasfan in this thread by our opponent, and they were unwarranted. The frankly, disgusting, accusations made would never happen under my Administration.

I spoke with one member of the Federalist Party recently who was against single-payer health insurance. Dallasfan and I both support a better health system for Atlasia, and we think single-payer would be the most effective. This member of the Federalist Party did not, support single payer. He did not believe it would work. Here's the problem with that:

The Game Engine is broken.
We don't have a GM who will even tell us if a bill will work or not. I'd back a market health care proposal if an analysis came back and said, "hey, this works better!" but we're not going to see that because we need to fix the engine of the game in order to keep moving forward.

This is the most important part of the game. I served as GM. It was dreadful. It's too much for one person. When I resigned and Averroes came in, he said it was every bit as dreadful as I described.

We need a team to run the Game Engine. I've proposed separating the GM, and the "Game Engine Team" from the cabinet. SOIA and SOEA would leave the cabinet. The SOEA would become the GM's narrator for foreign affairs. The SOIA would be split in two, and they would be regional narrators. Regional narrators would offer narratives for the regions and analyze bills under the direction of the GM. The foreign narrator would do the same, but for foreign events. This reform only creates one more position, and it reduces the workload of the GM substantially. The GM job is hard to fill, but it will be easier when the work load is lessened.

We don't claim that this is a golden solution to our problems, but we do believe in debating it and bringing it to the Senate. Hagrid also has a proposal for game reform that I'd like to hear about as well.

I realize, I wrote a lot so if you'd like to see more of our platform here it is: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=164259.msg4159783#msg4159783

In that thread, we outlined our ideas for comprehensive welfare reform, activity, on federal elections, drones, copyright, and more.

Our opponents have kept attacking us on why we shouldn't get your nomination, but they're not even in your party. The Federalists know best on why someone should or should not get their party's nomination -- thats why we had opted to not address the convention until North Carolina Yankee gave the "okay."

Our record and our accomplishments is the most important indicator of what you're likely to see from Dallasfan and I if elected. We're realistic, we're pragmatic and we've stood with the Federalist Party before and I'm sure we will stand with them again.

Thank you for your time, and I hope you'll consider us for your nomination.

-SirNick
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #3 on: June 16, 2014, 07:34:20 PM »
« Edited: June 16, 2014, 07:38:02 PM by SirNick »

>_> So...I think I got the most votes, but I don't know if I won the endorsement per say...Chairman Yankee, please advise?

EDIT: Dallasfan says the vote may still be going? I thought it had ended but I could be completely and utterly wrong.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #4 on: June 16, 2014, 08:13:13 PM »

Friends -

I would like to thank the Federalist Party, on behalf of the SirNick/Dallasfan ticket, for their endorsement. We aspire to live up to your hopes and confidence regardless of who you voted for at the convention. Rest assured, Federalist concerns and ideas would be heard in a SirNick/Dallasfan Administration, and I hope we can earn the vote and confidence of every Federalist. 

Together, we can keep fighting to protect the freedoms of speech, assembly, religion, the press and due process for they are essential components to a free society. Together, we can work to find a tax policy that makes sense for Atlasia. Together, we can continue ensuring that diplomacy, not warfare, is the cornerstone of our relationship with the rest of the world.

Most importantly, please remember to vote this weekend!

Best -

SirNick & Dallasfan

Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2014, 05:19:23 PM »

A detailed platform is harder to achieve, but I believe that simplicity won't help us make the contrast we desire, specially when Labor has the ability to release a manifesto every convention. Going with concise paragrahps could accomplish that as well, but I believe it's time to get specific on several issues that we have left mostly open until now (like foreign policy). In any case, I offer to participate in a potential Platform Committe if one is formed.

How many people actually read the manifesto?
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2014, 09:04:19 PM »

A detailed platform is harder to achieve, but I believe that simplicity won't help us make the contrast we desire, specially when Labor has the ability to release a manifesto every convention. Going with concise paragrahps could accomplish that as well, but I believe it's time to get specific on several issues that we have left mostly open until now (like foreign policy). In any case, I offer to participate in a potential Platform Committe if one is formed.

How many people actually read the manifesto?

I did, and I would hope people take the time to read it as well (but yes, you're right, most people won't read it). Another argument that could be used here is that we're also having to deal with perceptions, that of Labor taking stands on most issues while we seem (emphasis in "seem") to use ideas in the general sense instead of advocating for specific policies or roads to follow.

Thats true too. I just wouldn't go overboard with text, its overwhelming.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #7 on: June 28, 2014, 09:51:08 AM »

Can you guys endorse the book Freakonomics? It's a really good book. Don't see how its relevant to ya'll, but good book nonetheless.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #8 on: June 28, 2014, 10:07:38 AM »
« Edited: June 28, 2014, 10:13:17 AM by SirNick »

Can you guys endorse the book Freakonomics? It's a really good book. Don't see how its relevant to ya'll, but good book nonetheless.

What is that, what even is that?

Oh, its a book that shows correlations (or possibly relationships) between things you would not think are  related/correlated. It's really interesting, you mentioned Freakonomics so I thought you knew about the book.

http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338


(for reference)
...I discussed part of it with TJ back in May and he warned agaisnt the wording potentially being construed as to endorse freakonomics or whatever that is called....
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #9 on: June 29, 2014, 08:34:38 PM »

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

Dude, you didn't read the chapter close enough if you think he's defending abortion. He's showing you statistics and how they may or may not be correlated. There is a brief forward on the chapter saying the chapter is about interesting numbers and not the policy. You can call it "Amount of people buying purple crayons" for all they care.
Logged
sentinel
sirnick
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,733
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.94, S: -6.61

« Reply #10 on: June 29, 2014, 10:10:03 PM »

I know next to nothing about it. TJ warned that use of the words "societal ills" following market solutions as potentially being an endorsement for using it in some rather weird places.

The reason I had brought up Freakonomics was that Freakonomics has a chapter defending abortion on an economic basis. That's the sort of interpretation I wanted to avoid.

After a somewhate lengthy discussion with Yankee, we decided to change the original writing of the proposed text, which said "societal issues" to "societal ills", the latter more clearly having a connotation toward poverty etc. rather than divisive social issues.

Dude, you didn't read the chapter close enough if you think he's defending abortion. He's showing you statistics and how they may or may not be correlated. There is a brief forward on the chapter saying the chapter is about interesting numbers and not the policy. You can call it "Amount of people buying purple crayons" for all they care.

Doesn't that book make frequent use of the "correlation = causation" fallacy, though?  I haven't read much about the book beyond reviews, but most of the reviews I've heard have been bad.

You have to read it to really get an understanding of the correlations they talk about. They don't say Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc or "Thing 1 Caused Thing 2" its literally look at these two sets of data, and maybe there's a third one in common...etc. It's a statistical and interesting read. There's no policy in it.

Although to address your point directly, if someone is saying "Freakonomics said X caused Y" then they're wrong because thats not the point of the book or what the writers are saying. They also address it extensively. 
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 12 queries.