Persepolis for Mideast Senate

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Hello Atlasians!

I am Persepolis, from the Mideast region, and I am running for the Mideast Region Senate seat. You, as Atlasians, are free to ask me questions about my platform and what I will do in office. I plan to continue my crusade for the rights of victims of crimes that I began in my time as a Mideast Assemblymember. I also believe that many Atlasian laws were created in a time where such laws seemed to move with the ebb and flow of current events, but do not currently support our values. I will work to turn around such laws to better reflect our current beliefs and ideals as Atlasians.

My platform:

Economy:
Stimulus Package: I am an ardent opposer of the stimulus package. I believe that it is benefiting the wrong people. Capitalism only works when the government does not try to rectify problems with massive spending. More times than not, the money ends up in the hands of the wrong people. 

Taxes: I believe that Atlasians should not pay taxes under a tiered tax system. I believe in a flat tax, which forces every Atlasian to pay equivalent amounts of taxes. No person should be subjected to tax hikes.

Trade: I believe free trade is the correct policy, but only when we are profiting from global trade. In this sort of economic climate, globalization tends to be our enemy. This may seem like a wild, right wing posture, but this is fairly similar to some things Obama is thinking. He wanted to protect our domestic companies by giving them money. Although I am very much against the stimulus package, he had the right idea. We need to protect our domestic markets in times of economic crisis. It is just that we should not throw money at certain industries that are failing. We should instead turn to import quotas and trade restrictions, slowing the trade defecit which contributed to such a large economic downturn.

Social Issues:
Abortion: Abortion is a travesty of justice. Once a baby has been conceived, the baby is alive. No person should have the ability to take that life away.

Gay Marriage: People have the right to be of any sexual orientation. People should not be discriminated against due to the wa they choose to live their lives. Every human being has the right to marry with any other human being, regardless of gender.


Military/Foreign Policy:
Iraq: The Iraq War is completely justified, and I would advocate the same type of action President Bush took in a similar Atlasian situation. We need to leave our borders to protect ourselves, especially after we have been taken advantage of, like in 9/11.

This is an incomplete platform, but these are mainstream issues which I feel I need to be upfront about my positions on. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I am willing to take questions if anyone has any.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Two questions:

1.) When you say "flat tax", you do mean a percentage of income, right? And not a certain amount of dollars, I hope!

2.) I'm kind of curious about your sceptical views on free trade. Would you disagree that restricting trade in an effort to "save jobs" would lead to a massive increase of prices because things that are currently cheaply imported would be much more expensive to produce in this country? And if that were the consequence, wouldn't that just further weaken the economy by lowering the average purchasing power?

1) Yes, as a percentage on income. I would certainly not want to impose a tax equal in dollar value to every citizen.

2) I am saying that in a situation where our economy has not been profitable in a position of global trade, like now, we need to protect our domestic jobs. I am not saying that we stop trade with other countries completely. I say we look to import quotas.
I think the rise in prices due to buying only domestic goods is part of a trade off. I believe that we would curb massive amounts of inflation by not spending as much. Also, there would be more domestic jobs, which would cause average income to rise, too. People who earn more are willing to spend more. This effect will cause the prices of some goods to rise, whereas goods which are always produced domestically will stay the same price. Regardless of what we do, prices will go up in an economic collapse. We just pick and choose what we pay more for and what we pay less for. We will pay more for domestic goods which we normally import, but we will pay less for our normal domestic goods. This will offset the inflation caused in a closed trade situation.

This is for the next regional Senate elections, I suppose?

Yes.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Why are you running for Senate?  What is wrong with the job HappyWarrior has been doing?

I believe that HappyWarrior has done an excellent job as a Senator, in the most literal sense of the word. He has fulfilled his duties well, and was an excellent PPT. However, I believe that he supports many policies that I do not. I don't think the policies he supports are in the best interests of Atlasia, and I believe I can represent the needs of the people.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Why are you running for Senate?  What is wrong with the job HappyWarrior has been doing?

I believe that HappyWarrior has done an excellent job as a Senator, in the most literal sense of the word. He has fulfilled his duties well, and was an excellent PPT. However, I believe that he supports many policies that I do not. I don't think the policies he supports are in the best interests of Atlasia, and I believe I can represent the needs of the people.

What policies have I stood for which are not in Atlasia's best interest?

You voted Aye to table the Income Tax Fairness Law, which at least deserved some debate. You can't just say we will not discuss something because you, personally, stand against it. Every idea merits debate, and that one certainly does. As PPT, you need to represent the people fairly, and shooting down a bill like that certainly isn't. In fact, I think it would be in Atlasia's best interests for the original bill to pass. However, the fact that you voted to table the bill really makes me feel you aren't moving toward a better Atlasia.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Why are you running for Senate?  What is wrong with the job HappyWarrior has been doing?

I believe that HappyWarrior has done an excellent job as a Senator, in the most literal sense of the word. He has fulfilled his duties well, and was an excellent PPT. However, I believe that he supports many policies that I do not. I don't think the policies he supports are in the best interests of Atlasia, and I believe I can represent the needs of the people.

What policies have I stood for which are not in Atlasia's best interest?

You voted Aye to table the Income Tax Fairness Law, which at least deserved some debate. You can't just say we will not discuss something because you, personally, stand against it. Every idea merits debate, and that one certainly does. As PPT, you need to represent the people fairly, and shooting down a bill like that certainly isn't. In fact, I think it would be in Atlasia's best interests for the original bill to pass. However, the fact that you voted to table the bill really makes me feel you aren't moving toward a better Atlasia.

Things are tabled all the time.  If people don't think a bill is worth discussing and wasting time on they can move on to more important matters.

Yes, but you can't base your judgement on whether a bill is tabled or not on polical standing. Every legitimate bill merits debate.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Why are you running for Senate?  What is wrong with the job HappyWarrior has been doing?

I believe that HappyWarrior has done an excellent job as a Senator, in the most literal sense of the word. He has fulfilled his duties well, and was an excellent PPT. However, I believe that he supports many policies that I do not. I don't think the policies he supports are in the best interests of Atlasia, and I believe I can represent the needs of the people.

What policies have I stood for which are not in Atlasia's best interest?

You voted Aye to table the Income Tax Fairness Law, which at least deserved some debate. You can't just say we will not discuss something because you, personally, stand against it. Every idea merits debate, and that one certainly does. As PPT, you need to represent the people fairly, and shooting down a bill like that certainly isn't. In fact, I think it would be in Atlasia's best interests for the original bill to pass. However, the fact that you voted to table the bill really makes me feel you aren't moving toward a better Atlasia.

Things are tabled all the time.  If people don't think a bill is worth discussing and wasting time on they can move on to more important matters.

Yes, but you can't base your judgement on whether a bill is tabled or not on polical standing. Every legitimate bill merits debate.

I kind of agree. Every bill deserves the chance to be introduced, but if a supermajority decides from the very beginning that it's not worth pursuing, I don't see a problem with that.

I just thnik that deulciding it's merit politically is the wrong way to go. I agree, bills like the Ben Constine Memorial Act should be tabled, but others should at least be worth the discussion.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Gay Marriage: People have the right to choose their sexual orientation. People should not be discriminated against due to the wa they choose to live their lives.

I am unclear on your position on the issue from this statement.   People have the right to choose their orientation?  Any gay person will tell you it's not a "choice".  The choice made by those in the gay community is a choice to be who they are.  Homophobes will argue that there is a choice involved, that we could make a decision to be straight. 

More to the point, do you therefore support the legalisation of gay marriage?

I can't speak for every glb person in the world, but I am bisexual and I have always been that way.

I support gay marriage. To clarify, by choice, I meant that people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Sorry for the confusion.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Gay Marriage: People have the right to choose their sexual orientation. People should not be discriminated against due to the wa they choose to live their lives.

I am unclear on your position on the issue from this statement.   People have the right to choose their orientation?  Any gay person will tell you it's not a "choice".  The choice made by those in the gay community is a choice to be who they are.  Homophobes will argue that there is a choice involved, that we could make a decision to be straight. 

More to the point, do you therefore support the legalisation of gay marriage?

I can't speak for every glb person in the world, but I am bisexual and I have always been that way.

I support gay marriage. To clarify, by choice, I meant that people should be allowed to marry regardless of sexual orientation. Sorry for the confusion.

The wording in your platform doesn't really tell your full postion on Gay Marriage.

I'll change it.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

I am still open to any questions people may have.

I would like to wish my opponent, Dan, a.k.a. Devilman 88, the best of luck in the upcoming election.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Sorry for my campaign slowing down recently. I have been extremely sick and I will have a lot of catching up to do tomorrow.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

The continuing question and answer session:

Does anyone have anything to ask me?

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What is your position on child pornography? Should the government work harder to put restrictions on it?

There are two different interpretations to your question:
1. Children in Pornography: Pornography should only contain people who are over the age of 18. Absolutely, the government should work much harder to remove this malaise of society.

2. Children Viewing Pornography: The age to look at pornography should also be 18 years. It makes no sense to limit the age of participating in pornography if the underage child can view it anyway. I believe that the Mideast Assembly would be wrong in passing a bill lowering the age of viewing pornography, and I feel the same way about the national government.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

While I'm not from your region, I may be serving with you in the future so...

What do you feel is the best way to encourage activity and more competitive elections in the new constitution currently being drafted?

We need to move past the same people running for elections again and again. It was mentioned in another thread that we try our hardest to market Atlasia to the masses, so we can get more active citizens in the game. I think we have reached the point where we cannot make it much more active from within. We need to find more politically motivated people outside the forum.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What is your position on child pornography? Should the government work harder to put restrictions on it?

There are two different interpretations to your question:
1. Children in Pornography: Pornography should only contain people who are over the age of 18. Absolutely, the government should work much harder to remove this malaise of society.

2. Children Viewing Pornography: The age to look at pornography should also be 18 years. It makes no sense to limit the age of participating in pornography if the underage child can view it anyway. I believe that the Mideast Assembly would be wrong in passing a bill lowering the age of viewing pornography, and I feel the same way about the national government.

On the second one...
How would you plan on keeping children from viewing pornography? Would they be punished by the government for viewing it?

I believe that the government should not levy a hefty punishment for minors viewing pornography. It is a rather small offense in the big scheme of things, so we should leave the punishment in the hands of the local authorities, and no higher.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

While I'm not from your region, I may be serving with you in the future so...

What do you feel is the best way to encourage activity and more competitive elections in the new constitution currently being drafted?

We need to move past the same people running for elections again and again. It was mentioned in another thread that we try our hardest to market Atlasia to the masses, so we can get more active citizens in the game. I think we have reached the point where we cannot make it much more active from within. We need to find more politically motivated people outside the forum.

Like myself . If more elected officials like Senator PiT actively recruited members, we could have a much more vibrant community.

Let me ask you this. If you are elected, will you actively recruit people from the Atlas forum?

I will absolutely recruit people to the Atlas forum. That will certainly be a priority.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What is your position on child pornography? Should the government work harder to put restrictions on it?

There are two different interpretations to your question:
1. Children in Pornography: Pornography should only contain people who are over the age of 18. Absolutely, the government should work much harder to remove this malaise of society.

2. Children Viewing Pornography: The age to look at pornography should also be 18 years. It makes no sense to limit the age of participating in pornography if the underage child can view it anyway. I believe that the Mideast Assembly would be wrong in passing a bill lowering the age of viewing pornography, and I feel the same way about the national government.

On the second one...
How would you plan on keeping children from viewing pornography? Would they be punished by the government for viewing it?

I believe that the government should not levy a hefty punishment for minors viewing pornography. It is a rather small offense in the big scheme of things, so we should leave the punishment in the hands of the local authorities, and no higher.

What punishment would you recommend?

I would recommend community service. I would not want any jail time to come of this. The community service should be between 100-500 hours and should be at the discretion of the local authorities.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What is your position on child pornography? Should the government work harder to put restrictions on it?

There are two different interpretations to your question:
1. Children in Pornography: Pornography should only contain people who are over the age of 18. Absolutely, the government should work much harder to remove this malaise of society.

2. Children Viewing Pornography: The age to look at pornography should also be 18 years. It makes no sense to limit the age of participating in pornography if the underage child can view it anyway. I believe that the Mideast Assembly would be wrong in passing a bill lowering the age of viewing pornography, and I feel the same way about the national government.

On the second one...
How would you plan on keeping children from viewing pornography? Would they be punished by the government for viewing it?

I believe that the government should not levy a hefty punishment for minors viewing pornography. It is a rather small offense in the big scheme of things, so we should leave the punishment in the hands of the local authorities, and no higher.

What punishment would you recommend?

I would recommend community service. I would not want any jail time to come of this. The community service should be between 100-500 hours and should be at the discretion of the local authorities.

For looking at porn?? I believe that it should be up to a parent to punish their children for looking at porn, not the government.

Sometimes, in their teenage years, minors tend to become rebellious and turn against their parents. A slap in he wrist and a grounding by the parents may not solve the problem. However, making a teenager lose valuable time to spend chatting, twittering, facebooking, and watching TV can have a lasting impression.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

What is your position on child pornography? Should the government work harder to put restrictions on it?

There are two different interpretations to your question:
1. Children in Pornography: Pornography should only contain people who are over the age of 18. Absolutely, the government should work much harder to remove this malaise of society.

2. Children Viewing Pornography: The age to look at pornography should also be 18 years. It makes no sense to limit the age of participating in pornography if the underage child can view it anyway. I believe that the Mideast Assembly would be wrong in passing a bill lowering the age of viewing pornography, and I feel the same way about the national government.

On the second one...
How would you plan on keeping children from viewing pornography? Would they be punished by the government for viewing it?

I believe that the government should not levy a hefty punishment for minors viewing pornography. It is a rather small offense in the big scheme of things, so we should leave the punishment in the hands of the local authorities, and no higher.

What punishment would you recommend?

I would recommend community service. I would not want any jail time to come of this. The community service should be between 100-500 hours and should be at the discretion of the local authorities.

For looking at porn?? I believe that it should be up to a parent to punish their children for looking at porn, not the government.

Sometimes, in their teenage years, minors tend to become rebellious and turn against their parents. A slap in he wrist and a grounding by the parents may not solve the problem. However, making a teenager lose valuable time to spend chatting, twittering, facebooking, and watching TV can have a lasting impression.

Most parents would ground their kids of all of that if they caught them looking at porn. I know my parents would.
I just feel that doing this would let the government control our lives.

Yes, but that would be the extent of it. No labor or anything that would really tell you never to do it again. Getting grounded normally only makes a teenager more angry. It takes a bit more to get them to realize their mistake.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

A democracy must make laws based on the majority of people, whether it be white or black, Christian or Muslim, etc. In this case, I do not think I am in the majority, but I stand by what I have said. My values may mirror those of the Christian faith, but that does not bother me. If a democracy chooses to pass a law of Christian principles, then the government is allowed, in that case, to have a law based on Christianity. This law is may be based on Christian principles, but, if passed, it becomes Atlasian principle.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

A democracy must make laws based on the majority of people, whether it be white or black, Christian or Muslim, etc. In this case, I do not think I am in the majority, but I stand by what I have said. My values may mirror those of the Christian faith, but that does not bother me. If a democracy chooses to pass a law of Christian principles, then the government is allowed, in that case, to have a law based on Christianity. This law is may be based on Christian principles, but, if passed, it becomes Atlasian principle.

But should the minority be protect from the "tyranny of the majority". What if Christians weren't in the majority? Would your opinion be different?

My opinion would remain the same. The law would just be different.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

A democracy must make laws based on the majority of people, whether it be white or black, Christian or Muslim, etc. In this case, I do not think I am in the majority, but I stand by what I have said. My values may mirror those of the Christian faith, but that does not bother me. If a democracy chooses to pass a law of Christian principles, then the government is allowed, in that case, to have a law based on Christianity. This law is may be based on Christian principles, but, if passed, it becomes Atlasian principle.

But should the minority be protect from the "tyranny of the majority". What if Christians weren't in the majority? Would your opinion be different?

On Atlasia Christians aren't the majority at all.

I never said so. I will stand by my beliefs, and if they fall in the majority, so be it. If my beliefs do fall in the majority, then my beliefs become Atlasian law.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Does anyone have any more questions?

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Where does thee stand on the Mideast Officialization of the Separation of Religion and State Statute?

I agree with this bill. Although I would like some laws to be based on Christian morality, I don't think it is within anyone's power to force others to listen to or agree with what I say. I will vote for what I believe is right, and I will stand by it, but I will not force others to.

[Fine...I Made This More Civil]

Are there any other questions?