Potus/Maxwell for Atlasia: Townhall Thread

[Potus]

Welcome to the townhall thread of the Potus/Maxwell for Atlasia campaign. If you have any questions at all, ask away!

[Lincoln Republican]

I know there now exists the Crimea Compact, however, will the Potus/Maxwell administration bring NATO into full force should Russia start sabre rattling again, and seriously or simply threatens the territorial integrity of any other nation?

What type of a situation from Russia would have to exist in order for you to order the deployment of the Atlasian armed forces, in particular I would think the navy and air force?

[Maxwell]

I know there now exists the Crimea Compact, however, will the Potus/Maxwell administration bring NATO into full force should Russia start sabre rattling again, and seriously or simply threatens the territorial integrity of any other nation?

What type of a situation from Russia would have to exist in order for you to order the deployment of the Atlasian armed forces, in particular I would think the navy and air force?

I'll let Potus answer the question in more detail, but I think Russia would have to have serious threats to our own nation before we even think about using the armed forces to get involved. For anything below that, we'll use other foreign policy tools in order to fix the situation, whether that's sanctions, negotiations, or even airstrikes. I think the right policy is we use all possible tools before we even think of going to war, and putting American lives at risk must be to prevent further loss of life.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I know there now exists the Crimea Compact, however, will the Potus/Maxwell administration bring NATO into full force should Russia start sabre rattling again, and seriously or simply threatens the territorial integrity of any other nation?

What type of a situation from Russia would have to exist in order for you to order the deployment of the Atlasian armed forces, in particular I would think the navy and air force?

That compact must be ratified by all the National Assemblies or the nation-states involved in order to have the force of international law. I'm confident that won't happen.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Maxwell, you mention that it will take a "serious threat to our own nation before we even think about using the armed forces to get involved," but isn't there an argument to be made that waiting for a serious threat to manifest before even considering a military response a little, erm, dangerous? Moreover, what counts as a "serious threat to our own nation?" While the further expansion of Russia into Eastern Europe may not directly spell "serious" doom for Atalasians at home, could allowing a country to steamroll its neighbours unchallenged not present a serious security risk to the global community?

[Maxwell]

Maxwell, you mention that it will take a "serious threat to our own nation before we even think about using the armed forces to get involved," but isn't there an argument to be made that waiting for a serious threat to manifest before even considering a military response a little, erm, dangerous? Moreover, what counts as a "serious threat to our own nation?" While the further expansion of Russia into Eastern Europe may not directly spell "serious" doom for Atalasians at home, could allowing a country to steamroll its neighbours unchallenged not present a serious security risk to the global community?

I think that there are other ways to get involved without the potential use of ground troops. I'm a personally believer in the developing military technologies that, increasingly, allow for less manpower, and should we be put in a situation for its needed use, I think those are far better than ground forces. Expenditure of human life is of the utmost value in this respect, and I think we should do everything to prevent that expenditure. I understand the point you are trying to make, I think we have to be careful getting ourselves involved in the affairs of other nations, especially one as powerful as Russia.

[Potus]

I know there now exists the Crimea Compact, however, will the Potus/Maxwell administration bring NATO into full force should Russia start sabre rattling again, and seriously or simply threatens the territorial integrity of any other nation?

What type of a situation from Russia would have to exist in order for you to order the deployment of the Atlasian armed forces, in particular I would think the navy and air force?

The last thing anyone wants is a Third World War. Especially when it's started by two very, very nuclear nations.

However, the lines are very much set. Russia has pre-emptively de-legitimatized any sort of action in Eastern Europe at all. They've backed that promise up with reparations, withdrawal, and a promise. If those conditions are broken, then it is imperative that all nations unite to preserve the peace.

Maxwell, you mention that it will take a "serious threat to our own nation before we even think about using the armed forces to get involved," but isn't there an argument to be made that waiting for a serious threat to manifest before even considering a military response a little, erm, dangerous? Moreover, what counts as a "serious threat to our own nation?" While the further expansion of Russia into Eastern Europe may not directly spell "serious" doom for Atalasians at home, could allowing a country to steamroll its neighbours unchallenged not present a serious security risk to the global community?

I think that there are other ways to get involved without the potential use of ground troops. I'm a personally believer in the developing military technologies that, increasingly, allow for less manpower, and should we be put in a situation for its needed use, I think those are far better than ground forces. Expenditure of human life is of the utmost value in this respect, and I think we should do everything to prevent that expenditure. I understand the point you are trying to make, I think we have to be careful getting ourselves involved in the affairs of other nations, especially one as powerful as Russia.

To follow up on what Maxwell said, I don't believe that we should be looking at Russia in a way that presumes violence and aggression. The Crimean Compact locks, not just the Russian Federation, but Vladimir Putin into a promise to preserve the peace.

Russia fully well knows that violating the peace of the Crimean Compact can, will, and must be met with the full force and authority of the world's military force.

[tmthforu94]

Are there any social issues your administration will pursue if you are elected?

[Potus]

Are there any social issues your administration will pursue if you are elected?

Most of the social issues should be kept to the regions. In my announcement, I said we should empower them to deal with these conflicts. As Secretary of State, I've worked to create more dialogue on foreign affairs. That's a federal-only issue.

The problem is, regions don't actually have anything to do. Social issues create a nice, hot topic for regional legislatures to debate and legislate. That's why we should push social issues to the regional level.

[Maxwell]

As someone who has supported hot button social issues on a regional level, this is an area where Potus2036 disagree on the policy and agree on the role of government - I think regions have the right to do something on this, but I won't legislate my will on the issue on a national level.

[bore]

Sorry to butt in here (my excuse is any citizen can go to a townhall meeting), but I'd just like to point out that this issue is one I strongly agree with Potus and Maxwell on.

[Maxwell]

Sorry to butt in here (my excuse is any citizen can go to a townhall meeting), but I'd just like to point out that this issue is one I strongly agree with Potus and Maxwell on.

Maybe on the end game, but the statement you made on the issue was strongly against regional rights ("moral cowardice", if I recall correctly), while Potus and I view this as one of many issues that make the game more interesting by allowing regions leeway.

[bore]

Sorry to butt in here (my excuse is any citizen can go to a townhall meeting), but I'd just like to point out that this issue is one I strongly agree with Potus and Maxwell on.

Maybe on the end game, but the statement you made on the issue was strongly against regional rights ("moral cowardice", if I recall correctly), while Potus and I view this as one of many issues that make the game more interesting by allowing regions leeway.

Not at all. My express reason for voting against that bill was because "this is a game, not real life. And to be fun as a game there have to be things the regions alone deal with." We're in complete agreement

What I meant by moral cowardice I do stand by, but it's not really relevant to how the game is played. For instance, imagine that you're a Real Life Senator, where you can actively change the course of america and a vote on the death penalty comes up. You are convinced that the death penalty is murder and a grave moral wrong. Your vote decides whether every state in the union abolishes it, or just the 20 that have favourable legislatures do. If you truly believe that the death penalty is murder then the right thing to do I think is obvious.

That said, that's a more abstract belief which doesn't really effect how I'd deal with regional rights.

I'll leave your thread in peace now

[Prince of Salem]

Where do you guys stand on bicameralism?

[Potus]

Where do you guys stand on bicameralism?

To me, bicameralism represents another one of those busy-body, do-gooder reform proposals that misses the point. We could spend a lot of time trying to hammer out the specifics of how many members and who they represent. But all of these proposals and specifics do nothing at all to solve the deficiencies in the community.

We can only grow the community when we strengthen diversity of opinion, foster free debate, and achieve greater ideological balance. Structural reforms to the game itself miss the mark. We've got to focus on growing and strengthening the community.

[Maxwell]

As a fan of consolidation, I acknowledge the fact that most of the reform proposals we seem to come up with won't really solve any of the issues we have in the game, and bicameralism is another proposal where that seems to be the case. The fact is, if we too vastly increase the number offices we have, there won't be enough to have competitive elections, and that, in and of itself, is already a problem we face.

The best way forward free debate on the issues, and doing that means greater communication among our citizens. In the beginning of our campaign, we contacted every member of the Federalist and Democratic Republican Party and notified them of our candidacy. From here on out, we are going to communicate our ideas for the future of Atlasia to the public, and that's how we get activity, not reforms that don't really get at the main problems we face as a nation and as a game.

[Potus]

Economic plan introduced in the main campaign thread.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is your position on peaceful declarations of secession?  Would your administration prosecute this, or do you view it as an issue of freedom of speech and assembly?

[ZuWo]

The Senate is debating an amendment which, if ratified, would significantly increase the powers of the Senate at the expense of the regions. In light of this amendment and the pending court case Roe v. Attorney General ZuWo, which fundamentally is about the question of what the Senate's law-making responsibilities are in relation to the Atlasian regions, what is your view on the ongoing power struggle between Nyman and the regions?

[Maxwell]

The Senate is debating an amendment which, if ratified, would significantly increase the powers of the Senate at the expense of the regions. In light of this amendment and the pending court case Roe v. Attorney General ZuWo, which fundamentally is about the question of what the Senate's law-making responsibilities are in relation to the Atlasian regions, what is your view on the ongoing power struggle between Nyman and the regions?

Potus2036 and I believe that Nyman has too much power at the expense of regional authority. This is because, among other things, communication between regions and Nyman has not been the best. As a result, we will make a marked effort to communicate with regional leaders to make sure that we are allowing them room for decision making. I think it isn't surprising that the leader of the Labor Party has approached the issue this way, punishing promising regional progress instead of doing something constructive.

As a regional officer myself, I've found that there isn't as much to do as you can do as a Federal official. I find it troubling because if we don't have a strong structure, then the game doesn't allow people to test out their legislative ability in a concrete way. I think we need to change that, and only Potus and I have the vision to do that.

This will be a good place to talk about what I want to do as Vice President, which is to be something of an ambassador, not just to the Senate, but to Regional Executives, so their interests are not infringed upon. In short, I encourage the Senate to reject this legislation, and instead find ways that the regions can be more productive rather than less.