Talk Elections

Atlas Fantasy Elections => Atlas Fantasy Elections => Topic started by: President Punxsutawney Phil on June 10, 2019, 09:03:32 PM



Title: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on June 10, 2019, 09:03:32 PM
I and Thumb will be co-hosting a debate between the three presidential candidates for starting later. This is the commentary thread where anyone can comment on the debate.

The candidates are:
Governor YoungTexan
Former President Adam Griffin
Former Vice President Kingpoleon

This is the commentary thread, the debate is here: https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=313265.0

If you have any questions you want me to ask the candidates, please tell me!


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Poirot on June 10, 2019, 09:07:17 PM
Is Kingpoleon allowed to participate if he feels like it  I imagine he was invited.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on June 10, 2019, 09:09:45 PM
Is Kingpoleon allowed to participate if he feels like it  I imagine he was invited.
I floated the issue with major party candidates and there was a chilly reception. I needed to secure their participation in the debate.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Fmr. Representative Encke on June 10, 2019, 09:10:59 PM
Well, considering the fact that MB was included in the February debate, I don't why there would be an issue with including Kingpo in this one.

Of course, there is also the separate issue that Smilo hasn't actually declared in the declaration thread, so the ticket is not official yet.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on June 10, 2019, 09:14:56 PM
Ok, now that I recall, I floated the idea in discord and no one expressed any support for the idea. I'll float the issue again and see if a more favorable reception comes this time.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Former President tack50 on June 10, 2019, 09:23:52 PM
Ok, now that I recall, I floated the idea in discord and no one expressed any support for the idea. I'll float the issue again and see if a more favorable reception comes this time.

I personally believe KingPoleon should be allowed. I mean, Thumb allowed MB's meme candidacy, why shouldn't we allow Kingpoleon's actually serious one?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Adam Griffin on June 10, 2019, 09:28:43 PM
I had and have no issue with his participation; presumably adding candidates won't slow down the debate process given the adopted format, so why not?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: President Punxsutawney Phil on June 10, 2019, 09:32:07 PM
Kingpoleon has every right to debate and I welcome him in to this debate. He is a candidate and has every right to participate in this exchange of ideas.
I had and have no issue with his participation; presumably adding candidates won't slow down the debate process given the adopted format, so why not?
Thanks for your input!
*In Iron Chef Voice*: let the debate begin!


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Former President tack50 on June 11, 2019, 03:29:08 PM
Well, let's start with questions from the public.  :d

Many people have in the past campaigned in favour of a parliamentary system at the federal level, like the ones Fremont and Lincoln currently have. Most notably in recient times, the Montfortian Party. What is your opinion on the matter?

For YT and Griffin: The third candidate in the race, Kingpoleon, has made Space Exploration a key point of his platform. What are your plans on that area?

For Kingpoleon: According to all analysis and polling (even if it is unreliable), you are in a very distant third. Do you plan on endorsing either candidate for second preference? And who would you rather have controlling Congress, the Labor/Pax coalition or the Fed/ACP coalition? Or maybe a split Congress?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Pericles on June 11, 2019, 05:13:50 PM
To all candidates: What are your plans regarding Social Security? Are you comfortable with the current level of benefits, or do you think they need to be expanded or reduced?

-To YT: Do you stand by the Social Security reform plan you proposed last election, is that something you plan to implement and if so how do you rebut charges that it is actually a stealth cut to Social Security?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Wells on June 11, 2019, 06:06:31 PM
YT's answers with all the fluff removed:



Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Unconditional Surrender Truman on June 11, 2019, 06:14:43 PM
()


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Lumine on June 11, 2019, 07:10:46 PM
Would the candidates be interested in a future musical based on the present race, and why not?

Now for the actual question:

Hypothetical excercise: If you could change a single thing about the present Constitution, what would that be?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: S019 on June 12, 2019, 08:08:24 AM
To all three candidates:


How do you plan to address gun violence??


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 01:45:41 PM
To YT and Adam:

One of the biggest problems I see happening at the federal level is a lack of activity, primarily from those serving with both major parties. In the event that you are elected, you'll be overseeing cabinet departments. You'll also be working with a Congress that could potentially consist of a majority that are members of your party/those that form a coalition with your party. As President, you'll have enough influence within your party, as well as with those outside of it, to ensure that things can actually get done. Many of these same inactive people find themselves appointed to cabinet departments, where they continue to do nothing/the bare minimum to be considered active in this game. Those same criticisms have also been made about your VP picks from both sides.

So my question is: What will you do to hold those in Congress and those you appoint to Cabinet department positions accountable for inactivity/doing the bare minimum to be considered "active"?



Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Sestak on June 12, 2019, 01:54:47 PM
To all candidates:

We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Sestak on June 12, 2019, 03:04:16 PM
Thank you to TimTurner and Thumb for moderating and holding this debate for us, I am appreciative of their work in holding this and I think the game is thankful that.
>previously rejected multiple potential moderators

Quote
I did not originally intend on seeking this office, I had been asked to and after careful consideration I jumped in.
>had chosen to run and was campaigning several weeks before announcement

Quote
Our game is facing several issues, issues that are solvable.
Alright. What issues? And what solutions do you propose?

Quote
I think this game needs newer leadership. Leadership that has shown that you can be a newer player and ready to be President.
Newer. Nice save.

Quote
I am here today to tell all of the voters that I am equipped and prepared to serve you. We face large issues that are ahead of us,
You said that already.

 
Quote
Federally we must look at fixing our deficits and implementing a sensible budget.
Which every administration attempts to do.

Quote
Issues within our regions like too many offices being available ought to be fixed,
Oh, look - you actually pointed out a game issue! I wonder what your plan will be to solve it.


Quote
but this is for the regions to tackle.
...no actual plan to solve it.

Quote
We also should be aware that we should not steal opportunities away from our newer players. New people ought to have more opportunity to rise up in this game and contribute to our Government, we ought to encourage that.
And you don't actually think it should be solved.

Quote
I am a Governor of a region that is not so partisan in terms of the legislation we pass. In the South, we all work together for the benefit of the region.
"I am the governor of a one-party region."

Quote
I say we bring this mentality straight to Nyman. Let us work together as a country, left, right and center.
right, right, and right, you mean.

Quote
We need someone that is not from the past at the top of the ticket, which is why I think I am uniquely prepared for this job.
Not from the past? Please. You've been here nearly twice as long as I have, and I'm considered well-established.

Quote
This game is important to me, I want to see it thrive. I am going to take steps to really make this a more open game.
Again, everyone says this. It's a nice sounding vague platitude, yes, but it's still a vague platitude.

Quote
Including newer players in the administration,
You mean newer like you? December 2016 newer? Or do you mean newer like your running mate, a signer of the First Constitution in 2004 before some current players were even born.

Quote
pushing for easier opportunity,
More vague platitudes. What does this actually mean?

Quote
and providing a new vision for Atlasia.
What new vision? You've given no specifics in here, you have no policy specifics in your campaign thread (and in fact, you've barely posted anything in your campaign thread). Just because you keep yelling "NEW VISION" doesn't mean that there's magically some 'new vision'.

Quote
If we do not elect in the next generation, I fear for the direction this game. This game cannot be a continuous retread of the past.
And yet you have failed to state even once how electing you would be any different from the administrations of the past.

Quote
When you vote for me, you will vote for a new vision for the game.

Again, WHAT NEW VISION?



YoungTexan/Vern: Newish Voices, No Vision.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 03:13:40 PM
Quote
Federally we must look at fixing our deficits and implementing a sensible budget.
Which every administration attempts to do.
Except the Weatherboy administration. which you helped get elected.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 03:30:30 PM
At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

Adam Griffin endorsed members of the House who voted against holding big businesses and corporations accountable for exploiting undocumented immigrants by stripping them of federal contracts if they hire them. The bill does exactly what Adam claims to support yet not once did he confront these representatives for being against the bill. Instead, he wants to help them get re-elected.


I will oppose this bill when it comes to a vote

I will also oppose this bill, as this stigmatizes undocumented immigrants who are trying to make ends meet.





Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Sestak on June 12, 2019, 03:46:13 PM
At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

Adam Griffin endorsed members of the House who voted against holding big businesses and corporations accountable for exploiting undocumented immigrants by stripping them of federal contracts if they hire them. The bill does exactly what Adam claims to support yet not once did he confront these representatives for being against the bill. Instead, he wants to help them get re-elected.


I will oppose this bill when it comes to a vote

I will also oppose this bill, as this stigmatizes undocumented immigrants who are trying to make ends meet.





And I suppose you only endorse people who agree with you on every single issue?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: YE on June 12, 2019, 03:50:48 PM
At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

Adam Griffin endorsed members of the House who voted against holding big businesses and corporations accountable for exploiting undocumented immigrants by stripping them of federal contracts if they hire them. The bill does exactly what Adam claims to support yet not once did he confront these representatives for being against the bill. Instead, he wants to help them get re-elected.


I will oppose this bill when it comes to a vote

I will also oppose this bill, as this stigmatizes undocumented immigrants who are trying to make ends meet.





Worth noting that some provisions that hold employers accountable are already law:

Quote
    (4.) An employment verification system shall be created for employers to verify the work authorization of new hires based on taxpayer identification numbers for citizens, permanent residents, and immigrants on visas.
    (a)) Once the verification system is in place, it shall be prohibited to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.
    (b)) Employers found in violation of Section 4 - 4a will be assessed a $10,000 fee per violation.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Come_Out_of_the_Shadows_Act

Of course, your bill goes further which raises the fundamental question of how much accountability is good enough. Do we know how well the present law is working? I recall seeing something about this from the GM department a while back but I couldn't dig it up.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 12, 2019, 03:57:42 PM
Glad to see Laborites AND Federalists actually paying attention to the debate this cycle!!! Very strong debate showing by yours truly in February, yet no feedback or commentary telling me how strong my performance was. Very sad! :( :( :(

Quote
I did not originally intend on seeking this office, I had been asked to and after careful consideration I jumped in.
>had chosen to run and was campaigning several weeks before announcement

YT's statement is still totally accurate. He initially encouraged me to run, only decided to run after I said I wouldn't. We've already been over this on Discord. Considering both candidates have made vague "fluff" statements (as is typical in any debate), there are probably more productive things to do then nitpick every sentence of YT's response...maybe we could get a GM story??


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 03:58:05 PM
At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

Adam Griffin endorsed members of the House who voted against holding big businesses and corporations accountable for exploiting undocumented immigrants by stripping them of federal contracts if they hire them. The bill does exactly what Adam claims to support yet not once did he confront these representatives for being against the bill. Instead, he wants to help them get re-elected.


I will oppose this bill when it comes to a vote

I will also oppose this bill, as this stigmatizes undocumented immigrants who are trying to make ends meet.





And I suppose you only endorse people who agree with you on every single issue?

He didnt even make a single effort to call them out on voting against the bill.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 04:00:34 PM
At the end of the day, they are able to achieve this goal because businesses and corporations are willing to break the law. These businesses break the law because - on average - they are able to save anywhere from $5000 to $15000 per year per undocumented employee. It then stands to reason that if you eliminate the ability for undocumented immigrants to find work - by making the act of law-breaking by businesses so cost-ineffective that they dare not do it - the flow of unauthorized immigration will slow to a trickle.

Adam Griffin endorsed members of the House who voted against holding big businesses and corporations accountable for exploiting undocumented immigrants by stripping them of federal contracts if they hire them. The bill does exactly what Adam claims to support yet not once did he confront these representatives for being against the bill. Instead, he wants to help them get re-elected.


I will oppose this bill when it comes to a vote

I will also oppose this bill, as this stigmatizes undocumented immigrants who are trying to make ends meet.





Worth noting that some provisions that hold employers accountable are already law:

Quote
    (4.) An employment verification system shall be created for employers to verify the work authorization of new hires based on taxpayer identification numbers for citizens, permanent residents, and immigrants on visas.
    (a)) Once the verification system is in place, it shall be prohibited to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.
    (b)) Employers found in violation of Section 4 - 4a will be assessed a $10,000 fee per violation.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Come_Out_of_the_Shadows_Act

Of course, your bill goes further which raises the fundamental question of how much accountability is good enough. Do we know how well the present law is working? I recall seeing something about this from the GM department a while back but I couldn't dig it up.

Stripping them of federal contracts and preventing them from being awarded new ones for violating the law does exactly what Adam has proposed. It makes it so that hiring undocumenred immigrants is so cost ineffective that they won't do it. It certainly hits much harder than only $10k per violation, especially when some of these companies depend on federal contracts.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Devout Centrist on June 12, 2019, 04:08:51 PM
And I suppose you only endorse people who agree with you on every single issue?
Of course! The ACP is an excellent vehicle for Representative Fhtagn's interests. By endorsing candidates who only toe the party line, loyalty is all but assured. It's a wonderful way to have Federalist politicians at your beck and call, lest they earn the ire of the ACP and risk their reelection chances.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: fhtagn on June 12, 2019, 04:14:00 PM
And I suppose you only endorse people who agree with you on every single issue?
Of course! The ACP is an excellent vehicle for Representative Fhtagn's interests. By endorsing candidates who only toe the party line, loyalty is all but assured. It's a wonderful way to have Federalist politicians at your beck and call, lest they earn the ire of the ACP and risk their reelection chances.
At least I hold elected officeholders accountable. The Labor party has no excuse for failing to ensure their current elected officeholders/officeholders that form a coalition with them actually do their jobs, or fulfill their campaign promises.

The Feds have this issue too, and on numerous occasions I've called out individual members as well as their leadership for failing to do anything to ensure their people are active.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Former President tack50 on June 12, 2019, 04:31:09 PM
Glad to see Laborites AND Federalists actually paying attention to the debate this cycle!!! Very strong debate showing by yours truly in February, yet no feedback or commentary telling me how strong my performance was. Very sad! :( :( :(


Let's be honest, the real highlight of the Feb 2019 debate was MB's performance as the Hoxhaist candidate :P


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Fmr. Representative Encke on June 13, 2019, 12:11:56 AM

Worth noting that some provisions that hold employers accountable are already law:

Quote
   (4.) An employment verification system shall be created for employers to verify the work authorization of new hires based on taxpayer identification numbers for citizens, permanent residents, and immigrants on visas.
    (a)) Once the verification system is in place, it shall be prohibited to knowingly hire unauthorized workers.
    (b)) Employers found in violation of Section 4 - 4a will be assessed a $10,000 fee per violation.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Come_Out_of_the_Shadows_Act

Of course, your bill goes further which raises the fundamental question of how much accountability is good enough. Do we know how well the present law is working? I recall seeing something about this from the GM department a while back but I couldn't dig it up.

This was the report I did back in March, as requested by Yankee. Didn't provide any data on e-verify though.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308863.msg6700442#msg6700442 (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=308863.msg6700442#msg6700442)


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 17, 2019, 07:48:53 PM
> From Sestak: We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?

What a complete load of sh**. Issue after issue, the presidency has been elevated during my tenure. We have been incredibly transparent on Discord. We've had regular NSC meetings that has included several state visits, China negotiations, etc. We passed a constitutional amendment closing a presidential overreach loophole. Countless executive orders have been issued on domestic issues, we currently have a PTO bill in queue. This is just to name a few things, the list is far more comprehensive. Anyone questioning my activity can take a look at my White House thread and judge for themselves. Hell, I spent over TWO HOURS earlier today completely updating the statue, with missing bills dating all the way back to 2017. Even when my cabinet members dropped the ball, I picked it back up and am moving our country forward.

Sestak, meanwhile, came back a month ago and almost immediately ascended to Deputy GM, promising to give multiple stories a week. He was confirmed over a month ago and we still have ZERO stories. I even asked him about this earlier today and never got a response. For him to have the audacity to try and call me out on activity considering his own record proves that he is a complete hypocrite right now. Whether it be false attacks on Lumine/myself during the last campaign or right now, he clearly has a personal vendetta against me. He spends more time criticizing folks on the right than doing his own job - this type of behavior is toxic for the game. I call on Sestak to end the negativity and focus on doing his job. This doesn't just go for him - across the board, if people focused on doing their job instead of drama/other stuff, maybe we'd have a more active Congress? We'd be able to pass more bills, our council meetings would be more productive, etc. THAT would elevate the game.

I urge everyone to take ownership in improving this game. We all have a part to play.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Lumine on June 17, 2019, 08:13:48 PM
To all candidates:

We are coming off of two straight inactive presidencies - how can you assure us you will turn things around and keep up your own activity level?

With due respect, that's simply untrue. Whatever the personal opinion you may have of the President he's been remarkably active, engaged and has done his duty (and more). Separate issues which have arised are attributable to others - myself included - not being able to deliver due to varying reasons (chiefly RL), and it would be absolutely and clearly unjustified to blame him for it.

There is simply no comparison to be had with the last administration (which, with due deference to Weatherboy as a citizen I respect, was one of the most historically inactive). You should certainly know this very well - as it was the case back then -, which is why I'd find it very surprising if you truly believed both administrations were comparable activity wise.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 20, 2019, 04:47:10 PM
I have a question for Griffin: In your campaign rhetoric, the general mood is that the sky is falling in Atlasia, things are terrible, and only you can fix them. However, in reading through your responses and campaign thread, I haven't seen too many specifics on how this game is actually in terrible shape, aside from the large size of regional legislatures, which is largely is an issue the regions will have to correct (though the president's backing will certainly be helpful). Can you go into a bit more detail on what you think is currently broken in the game and how you propose to fix them?

I'd also ask the same question to YT - what do you see as the biggest challenges in the game and how would you fix them?


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Adam Griffin on June 20, 2019, 10:06:18 PM
I have a question for Griffin: In your campaign rhetoric, the general mood is that the sky is falling in Atlasia, things are terrible, and only you can fix them. However, in reading through your responses and campaign thread, I haven't seen too many specifics on how this game is actually in terrible shape, aside from the large size of regional legislatures, which is largely is an issue the regions will have to correct (though the president's backing will certainly be helpful). Can you go into a bit more detail on what you think is currently broken in the game and how you propose to fix them?

I think your initial statement is a bit misleading: I have never said nor implied "the sky is falling" so much as "the sky will be falling soon [if we don't fix emerging issues that threatened the game before]". People of course laughed at me in 2013 & 2014 when I made the same accurate claims about the then-future. With that being said, I have articulated my proposals for pushing through a reduction of elected offices, whether that be via the strength of the presidential pulpit and at the regional level, or through federal means (if the Congress is supportive of such measures).

I also believe that there is a general, broader trend afoot that is fueling this; namely that because so many elected and appointed offices have been created (combined, far more than ever existed pre-Reset), the inherent value of each is now perceived as less by the players of this game, if only at a subconscious level. I've always believed that holding office should be a privilege and not a participation trophy. Another way we can help reverse this broader problem is by seeking appointed offices we can consolidate, like I have proposed in Lincoln (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=322340.0) and much along the lines that you and I have discussed privately. Ultimately, there is still time to encourage reform within the Regions, but if we reach a situation where the collapse of 2015 appears to be imminently on our doorstep once again, I will proactively pursue federal measures to rectify these issues aggressively.

If such measures are taken federally to address these legitimate concerns, then I hope we will pursue a measure similar to what I offered in 2015 (and that was mentioned in the debate): a reapportionment system for the regions that assesses populations every 2 months and apportions seats based on each region's size, with penalties/reductions in offices if one or more regions becomes too small or too big relative to the country as a whole.


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: tmthforu94 on June 20, 2019, 11:34:06 PM
Thank you for your answer, Griffin!


Title: Re: June 2019 presidential debate commentary thread
Post by: Poirot on June 21, 2019, 02:42:17 PM
Not sure I would take credit for the birth of a new game (I imagine it's the reset) and want to reduce regional offices when the reset increased the number of offices at the federal level, so some of the number of regional pffices were transfered to Nyman.