Progressive Caucus Stuff

[Peter]

But only as a replacement for euthanasia. I don't think any serious group should make it an objective to push for the legalisation of killing people without their consent.

Yes, I can see how my earlier proposal could be construed in this way, though it was not my intent. Yours unfortunately may also suffer from a couple of flaws in the same vein:

I propose the following:

Assisted Suicide

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of the terminally ill to seek a death faster than would have otherwise occured through the assistance of doctors, and for persons to leave instructions to this effect for the event of their permenant incapacity.

How's this for abortion?

The Progressive Caucus supports the rights of the mother to have an abortion through the second trimester of the pregnancy.

I'd like a mother's health and foetal viability exception also. There's also something of a fault-line through the caucus on this issue and I question whether second trimester would get enough support

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of a mother to an abortion throughout the first trimester of the pregnancy and in the cases of a threat to the mother's health and foetal inviability throughout the pregnancy.

[minionofmidas]

Both very good texts that sum up my position exactly.

Hey, on second thoughts, I'm still a member, right? Or did I quit right after the elections? I remember thinking about it, but I don't think I did.

[Peter]

Both very good texts that sum up my position exactly.

Hey, on second thoughts, I'm still a member, right? Or did I quit right after the elections? I remember thinking about it, but I don't think I did.

As far as I have been concerned you didn't, even if you did.

[Peter]

The Caucus Rules change has gone up for a vote in the Voting Booth in this thread

By my count there is a little less than 12 hours remaining on this vote.

I will make my speech after close of voting tonight.

Given that the Measure looks almost certain to pass, the parties might want to think about who they want to put on the Board.

[Peter]

The measure has passed; The present census of the Caucus is as follows:

FLP = 8 members = 2 seats on board
ILP = 5 members =1 seat
CUP = 3 members = 1 seat
Free = 3 members = 1 seat
Others = 5 members (3 Inds, 1 Dem, 1 ACA) = 1 seat should 3 of these members choose to affiliate.

As far as I am aware Akno, Josh and Jake have affiliated to have Akno represent them.

The Parties can work out how to put members on the board on their own.

I'll make my address soon.

[Akno21]

Are we going to have some type of activity requirements to be included in the caucus? There is some dead weight (Flyers) that impacts the census, and it might skew the board, in terms of how much representation groups should have.

[Peter]

Fellow Progressive Caucus members,

The ever expanding Progressive Caucus now encompasses so many parties from the left across to the centre-right. It is always my pleasure to see that our Caucus attracts so many members and continues to stand for a Social Progressivism that will truly bring Atlasia into the 21st Century and give to all our citizens the right to celebrate their differences and their freedoms, whilst continuing to exist as one harmonious society.

This Caucus has seen a time where the practice of the death penalty has been reduced with the Mideast outright banning it and the Midwest due to take a vote on a similar measure soon. There have been similar motions in several of our Regions, and hopefully all Regions will soon ban the absolutely regressive practice of juvenile execution.

I welcome the efforts of the Pacific Legislature in its attempts to create a more progressive social policy with the legalisation of medical marijuiana and a reduction in the age necessary to purchase alcohol. Hopefully similar efforts will see success in other Regions, including the Mideast Region with its drive to reduce the age necessary to view pornography.

I urge the Federal Senate to repeal inter-Region and international trade restrictions on marijuana as I feel this should be a Regions-decide matter, and I wish the bill in the Senate presently all the success in the world.

In a matter of just over a week, elections for the Atlasian Senate and to three of the Governorships will take place: In deciding how each of you vote in your individual elections, I ask you take into account the stances of the candidates on social issues, and when casting your votes in the endorsement poll, I ask you to especially take this into account.

In each race we must choose between endorsing a specific candidate, urging voters to vote for NOTA, or not taking a position and remaining neutral.

In D1, the voters are presently confronted with Supersoulty alone - Whilst I consider that Supersoulty professes to one of the worst ideological aberations our world has ever known and has a record that could almost be the antithesis of social progressivism, he is nonetheless a competent Senator, and therefore I urge that our members not vote against him in the endorsement poll. I recommend to all members in this respect a Neutral vote.

In D2, the voters are presently confronted with PBrunsel alone - Whilst his ideological insanity is not that of neo-Conservatism, it is still insane in the respect of the fact that I feel he allows his personal religious choices to inform his ideology too much. He has ranted in many venues of this hallowed forum of a position that bears many hallmarks of the religious right - Whilst he hides behind his Mr. Nice Guy persona, he is undoubtedly an enemy of social progressivism and would doubtless move to repeal hard-earned victories such as Gay marriage and would likely support a total abortion ban. His competence is also in question as was displayed through his Presidency - his heavy reluctance to fire Secretary MasterJedi in the wake of massive inactivity was proof enough that his ability to make the tough decisions is questionable. I urge all members to support None of the Above.

In D3, the voters are presently confronted with NixonNow and King - I'm no opponent of true Conservatism, and this is what NixonNow adheres to. Nonetheless, his anti-Semetic jokes, are worrisome in the respect that they bring our Republic into complete disrepute. King has just announced his candidacy, so I really have no idea what I'm doing since I'm changing a pre-prepared speech. Whilst King is a holder of the Assclown award (Miss February), I nonetheless feel he is certainly more socially progressive than his opponent and will hopefully be an asset in the Senate. I recommend that this caucus endorse King.

In D4, voters have much choice between John Dibble, Ebowed and Cosmo Kramer. Ebowed is very much an unknown commodity - he has however come out against all abortion and euthanasia - this presents worrying questions over whether he could truly support a Socially Progressive agenda in the Senate. Clearly enthusiastic, and with a good grasp of the issues, he would be a good addition to the Senate, however doubts about his other social stances remain and for this reason I cannot ask members to endorse an unknown quantity.

John Dibble is a Libertarian to be sure, though I feel he is a Libertarian with whom this Caucus could do business. He would undoubtedly support much of the Progressive agenda, and has already indicated his willingness to comprimise on issues such as education and fight over questions of control of funding, as opposed to arguing for reduction in funding.

Cosmo Kramer, despite being a member of the Progressive Caucus, recently boasted to the ACA that he considered he was the "most socially conservative" candidate in this race. On the basis of his own remarks I do not consider him a viable ally for Social Progressivism in the Senate.

For the District 4 race, I urge members to endorse John Dibble.

In D5, voters are faced with Gabu and DanielX. Gabu has been a great champion in the Senate and has worked hard as PPT. He has supported the Progressive agenda in his time and for this reason I see his re-election as much needed. DanielX is not necessarily an opponent of our agenda either; From when I ran against him for the possession of my present job, I know that Daniel is an honest and well-intentioned candidate and against most other oppponents I would seriously consider him for this endorsement, unfortunately Daniel has a habit of running into the Giants of the Centre Left. I wish Daniel the best in the future, and hope he will run for the Midwest Senate seat, though I feel this Caucus should vote to endorse Gabu today.

In the Southeast Gubernatorial Race, voters are faced with Harry, StatesRights and WiseGuy. StatesRights is an undoubtable enemy of social progressivism as evidenced by his positions even on the existence of gays. I do not consider him a viable endorsement in this regard.

WiseGuy is new to Atlasia and is clearly enthusiastic; However his position of support for user fees to pay for public services I find to be unacceptable as it would leave the most vulnerable in society without the ability to live. He has also come out against gay marriage and most likely has other socially conservative positions. Whilst I wish him the best of luck in his time here, I cannot regard him as a viable candidate for endorsement.

My disagreements with Harry are well known and I am of no doubt in my opinion that he is corrupt. Unfortunately we've yet to definitively nail him despite knowledge of several shady deals with Boss Tweed and his introduction of pocket voters such as KatieG. He is however an ally of social progressivism and would doubtless try to stem the tide of socially conservative measures in the Southeast. However, I consider that doubts over integrity must be controlling.

Lacking a NOTA option in the Southeast, I urge members to vote to remain Neutral

In the Midwest, voters are now faced with only Cheesewhiz, which is a shame, because I had some really good lines for the ILV candidacy. Cheesewhiz is quite socially conservative, so I'm going to recommend a Neutral endorsement. Assuming he is elected, I wish him the best in his time here in Atlasia.

In the Pacific, Wildcard and Immy are running unopposed for their respective positions. I've used up my lexicon of ways to call people socially progressive, so I'll just say that they both are and that I urge members to endorse them both for re-election.

Before anybody asks, the vote on endorsements will begin over the weekend.

Feel free to discuss my recommendations.

[Peter]

Are we going to have some type of activity requirements to be included in the caucus? There is some dead weight (Flyers) that impacts the census, and it might skew the board, in terms of how much representation groups should have.

We can routinely expel the dead weight if its necessary. Also, those who get struck from the voter rolls, automatically get struck from our rolls.

[Jake]

I doubt Harry will stand up against social progressivism as he's voted for my abortion initiative.

[Peter]

I doubt Harry will stand up against social progressivism as he's voted for my abortion initiative.

Sensical would be nice.

[Peter]

Social liberalism dosen't equal progress.

Not necessarily in all cases, but in my opinion it does for the most part. Its also pretty ignorant of the founding movement that lead to this caucus to suggest that social liberalism isn't  big part of what we stand for.

[Peter]

Then I'm sorry.  I misunderstood the principles of this caucus by naively thinking it was actually supporting progress, not acting a front for the social liberal establishment.

I've deliberately tried to foster the Caucus from taking official stances on some of the more divisive issues such as abortion and affirmitive action, and taking a conciliatory line on the death penalty, but there are places that I draw the line.

For example I certainly consider that somebody who holds these sort of views:

Homosexuals are mostly perverts whos' lifestyle should not be admired. Most of them have very serious mental issues or are child molestors and those two reasons alone are enough to block homosexuals from adopting children.

hear! hear!

is not really an ally of progress in society. The suggestion that almost all homosexuals are perverts/child molesters/mentally retarded is frankly stupidly naive. I can understand those with certain religious convictions who feel it is sinful to engage in these acts, and I can understand those who feel that its not their cup of tea, but labelling gay people as child molesters is just contrary to the facts.

[Peter]

I've gotta say, it'll be pretty ironic if the Progressive Caucus endorses John Dibble, considering he also earned the endorsement of the Atlasian Conservative Alliance, presumably due to his economic stances.

As I say, to me, you are pretty much an unknown commodity. You've shied away from social issues other than abortion. As I've said, I don't wish to really place the Caucus on this issue, so I really don't know what to judge you on. Dibble on the other hand is well known on the forum and therefore I know what he stands for already.

You've sort of outlined some of your positions earlier, and I am still willing to consider you and change my advice. I suppose a good thing for you to do would be to respond to the platform planks, which can be found here in addition to the stuff you've already said.

And you're right, it would be quite ironic; I hadn't actually noticed until now however.

[Ebowed]

I've gotta say, it'll be pretty ironic if the Progressive Caucus endorses John Dibble, considering he also earned the endorsement of the Atlasian Conservative Alliance, presumably due to his economic stances.

As I say, to me, you are pretty much an unknown commodity. You've shied away from social issues other than abortion.

I wasn't aware of this.  As many may know I am the only anti-death penalty candidate in this race, and in fact my stance on it was so extreme in the left direction that even many members of your caucus seem to oppose it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For all of the planks that I didn't already go over in my post, I support all of them to varying degrees.  Your planks on Media Regulation, Education, and Sex Education are perfectly complementary to my beliefs.  On your Taxation plank, I agree, however I would support tax cuts in the case of a surplus.  On your Pornography plank, I would support the age to be 18, not 16, as I think that if the age were 16 other adult rights would have to come with it, possibly even the right to vote.

And of course my stances on Drugs, Gay Marriage, the Death Penalty, Environment, Abortion, and School Prayer / Pledge of Allegiance are well documented in a previous post.

[Peter]

On your Pornography plank, I would support the age to be 18, not 16, as I think that if the age were 16 other adult rights would have to come with it, possibly even the right to vote.

The age of sexual consent is 16 in most States: I don't see why at one age you are able to engage in the acts, but you cannot look at pictures of people engaging in these acts for another two years. Its never made intuitive sense to me, and frankly teens are going to get hold of the stuff regardless, so I see no reason to criminalise a perfectly normal behaviour. Obviously we still need to protect younger children, but considering that a teen can legally do it at 16 in most places, I'm not so sure what the point in protecting them from porn is.

[Ebowed]

It's just a matter of other rights coming with it, that's all.  You brought up a good point about the Age of Consent.  I would support lowering the porn age to 16, but I'd prefer if other rights came with it (like the right to vote, right to buy cigarettes, etc.).

[Peter]

Okay, I've just discovered, that according to the SE constitution, their elections must occur this weekend, so I'm going to call to order only the vote on that endorsement.

I'm going to wait on the other endorsements, because as we are presently seeing in the D3 fight, circumstances can change quickly and I'd rather not have to think too much about changed votes when I count up.

[Lt. Gov. Immy]

I've gotta say, it'll be pretty ironic if the Progressive Caucus endorses John Dibble, considering he also earned the endorsement of the Atlasian Conservative Alliance, presumably due to his economic stances.

I was endorsed by th ACA as well, but I don't think anyone is saying I'm not progressive, ecspecially since we are focusing on social issues.

[Ebowed]

I was endorsed by th ACA as well, but I don't think anyone is saying I'm not progressive, ecspecially since we are focusing on social issues.

You're the only candidate in your race, aren't you...?  John Dibble is running against two candidates, so unless the other two candidates are completely clueless joke candidates, something fishy would be going on if he recieved the endorsement of both the token conservative party and the forum's liberal caucus.

[Lt. Gov. Immy]

I was endorsed by th ACA as well, but I don't think anyone is saying I'm not progressive, ecspecially since we are focusing on social issues.

You're the only candidate in your race, aren't you...?  John Dibble is running against two candidates, so unless the other two candidates are completely clueless joke candidates, something fishy would be going on if he recieved the endorsement of both the token conservative party and the forum's liberal caucus.

Well, you do have a point there.

Let me read up on your positions again and see about my vote, which I have moved to undecided.

[John Dibble]

I was endorsed by th ACA as well, but I don't think anyone is saying I'm not progressive, ecspecially since we are focusing on social issues.

You're the only candidate in your race, aren't you...?  John Dibble is running against two candidates, so unless the other two candidates are completely clueless joke candidates, something fishy would be going on if he recieved the endorsement of both the token conservative party and the forum's liberal caucus.

Or, perhaps I have qualities that appeal to both liberals and conservatives.

[Peter]

You're the only candidate in your race, aren't you...?  John Dibble is running against two candidates, so unless the other two candidates are completely clueless joke candidates, something fishy would be going on if he recieved the endorsement of both the token conservative party and the forum's liberal caucus.

The suggestion that there's some sort of corruption going on is ridiculous. I don't know how John came to get the ACA endorsement, but I made my recommendation completely independently of other people.

School Prayer and Related Issues - I oppose organized prayer in public schools, but support the "Moment of Silence" that is used in most public schools.  I oppose removing "Under God" from the Pledge officially, however I am completely against the mandatory recitation of it in public schools.  Whether or not it contains a reference to God, being forced to say it is a violation of free speech.  Many liberals seem to overlook this fact, and it makes them look anti-religious.  To me, it's not about the reference to God, it's the whole thing.  Not wanting to recite an allegiance to the country is protected by the first amendment.  On a related note, I also oppose any laws or amendments that would outlaw flag desecration.

I'd like to go through this a little more if thats okay as I'm not entirely sure where you stand:

When you say you are against mandatory recitation in schools, does this mean you are against the recitation of the Pledge in schools period, or does it mean you are against students being forced to recite the Pledge when it is recited daily?

I'd also like to take you back over the issue of Sex Education if I may: In your own local community, what stances would you want the curriculum to take on homosexuality and abstinence education. Also would you support contraception on demand after age 16?

[Ebowed]

The suggestion that there's some sort of corruption going on is ridiculous. I don't know how John came to get the ACA endorsement, but I made my recommendation completely independently of other people.

Oh dear.  No, I wasn't accusing anybody of corruption!  I just said that it would be ironic if he got the endorsement, and it would seem fishy.  I didn't mean that there's some sort of corruption!  Sorry if that's what it sounded like.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The former.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What sort of homosexuality education do you mean, exactly?  If you mean, homosexual behaviour can be biologically influenced, sure, I don't have a problem with that being taught.  On distributing contraception, I think it's a good way to make abortion rarer, but I'd also support abstinence education.  I support the idea expressed in your plank that individual communities should be able to decide if contraception is given to students.  It should definitely be up to the communities, not a federal Department.

[John Dibble]

The suggestion that there's some sort of corruption going on is ridiculous. I don't know how John came to get the ACA endorsement, but I made my recommendation completely independently of other people.

Oh dear.  No, I wasn't accusing anybody of corruption!  I just said that it would be ironic if he got the endorsement, and it would seem fishy.  I didn't mean that there's some sort of corruption!  Sorry if that's what it sounded like.

Just some advice on vocabulary context - fishy implies corruption. Something being fishy means it 'smells bad', so something ironic or coincidental doesn't apply.

[Ebowed]

Yes, I did choose poor wording.  I'm sorry.  I just want to make clear that I didn't mean to imply any sort of corruption.