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

[tmthforu94]

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

We encourage all members of the Party to remain well read and whilst I don't think we will be holding a vote to endorse anyone book in particular, I urge the members to consider it reading.

Of course I also urge people to read the Communist Manifesto, if for no other reason then to know what they are arguing against.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This next vote I hope will be the last one on the mission/introductory statement text. So if you have any recommended changes, speak now or forever hold your peace.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[  ] Aye
[  ] Nay
[  ] Abstain

The above text is now at vote. This vote will last for 72 hours.

[Dereich]

Nay. Government redistribution is neither the only nor the most effective way to address income inequalities.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay. Government redistribution is neither the only nor the most effective way to address income inequalities.

No, the best way is supporting unions, but that ain't gonna happen.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[rpryor03]

Aye

[Prince of Salem]

Nay.

Inequality, want it or not, and however you address it, is still an important social issue.

[tmthforu94]

NAY

Good Lord, people

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Wouldn't societal ills cover income inequalities, I mean from a redundancy/concission point of view?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Nay. I think it is rather clear from the context that our pledge to address income inequality is no endorsement of socialistic or social democratic policies.

Wouldn't societal ills cover income inequalities, I mean from a redundancy/concission point of view?

    Suppose that one does not consider income inequality a societal ill, but something to be addressed nevertheless?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

NAY.

As different as my economic philosophy may be from most in the party, this is definitely not the kind of message we want to send working-class Atlasians.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Wouldn't societal ills cover income inequalities, I mean from a redundancy/concission point of view?

That's why I supported it. I believe income inequality actually is a serious societal ill, but the proposed language will at least allow reconciliation with members of our party who maybe think otherwise.

I also supported it perhaps out of confusion: Are we voting on this as an amendment or as the final text? I assumed it was the final text and reasoned that it was "good enough" to vote aye and get this out of the way. I haven't been following along though, so it's possible I misunderstood?

[Prince of Salem]

Maybe it's a little late to say this but it could be read better like this (yet, I still think it is fundamental to mention it) :

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Anyway, I'm still keeping my vote. As I told you, it's still fundamental.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I was hoping it would be a final vote, but allowed myself flexibility enough for it to not be so if need be.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I wish I hadn't gone 72 hours on this vote.


Anyway we need a change in tactics as well as greater participation if we are to finish this by August. This is your party too after all.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Okay that vote clearlyed failed (more ways then one).


I am going to treat the past several votes as amendment votes on the text adopted in the first vote that we had.


JoMCar, do you wish to offer that text as an amendment?

I want to establish a date certain to cut this off and move to the rest of the platform, but I worry that people won't notice it and then come in here last minute with more concerns.

[Prince of Salem]

JoMCar, do you wish to offer that text as an amendment?

Yes, Mr. Chairman

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I'm going to offer an amendment and see how much traction it gets.  It would've been longer, but I understand that some of us prefer a platform that's short and to the point, so I'm submitting something that keeps to that standard.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TJ in Oregon]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I guess I'll bite and ask what you have in mind as a starting point?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I guess I'll bite and ask what you have in mind as a starting point?

I've long been a proponent of regions establishing a housing program in the mold of Utah's anti-homelessness initiative that was started over a decade ago.  In summary, the state provides free apartment rooms to people who can't afford shelter and are often trapped in a nonstop pattern of entering and leaving hospitals for a number of reasons.  Those who are not mentally disabled are provided with a social worker that helps them find work, but clients get to keep their apartment until they're self-sustainable.  In my opinion, it's far more effective than food stamp programs or even the EITC (not that I want to get rid of either) because its services are actually tailored to people's individual needs.  Utah is on track to completely eradicate homelessness in its borders by the end of the decade because of it.

Socialist as it may sound, it's actually something that both Utah Democrats and Republicans support and it inevitably leads to less government dependence once people get a leg up.

But that, in a nutshell, is what my amendment endorses.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I take it we're all on board with this?