Labor Party Standing Committee thread: Endorsement voting

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't suppose campaigning for reinstitution of civil marriage or something would be a worthwhile use of time considering the other issues of neoliberal moderate-heroism and selling out that we have to deal with. Let's talk about the workers.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd support 5*6 with a guaranteed one-hour lunch break. Say 10-1 and 2-5, or 9-12 and 1-4?

I'm not wedded to the length of the lunch break but it has to be at least half an hour.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I feel like we should oppose any future free trade agreements that might be in the pipeline, but should we oppose them in general, or oppose them absent guarantees that the other countries entering into the agreement would adopt decent labor relations policies? Using trade to get other countries to move from capital towards labor seems to me like one of the worthiest things this party could possibly do, but I'd like you guys' input as well.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I vote yes, with the statement that 'CONDITIONAL' should be in big fat red letters.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I wasn't hyaku parcento serious.

This could also work:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's my sense that it should be free trade that's conditional that we're supporting, rather than supporting free trade but doing so conditionally. It's a subtle difference but emphasizing that the free trade is conditional is, I think, important.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's my sense that it should be free trade that's conditional that we're supporting, rather than supporting free trade but doing so conditionally. It's a subtle difference but emphasizing that the free trade is conditional is, I think, important.

As in fair trade being the norm instead of a policy only for cushioning against backwards oppressistans?

As in fair trade being the norm prior to due diligence, yes.

Antonio, remind the convention of your proposal, please?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd support tax exemptions but there is after all already that 'depending on their means' in Antonio's language. Do you think we could finesse that?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'd support tax exemptions but there is after all already that 'depending on their means' in Antonio's language. Do you think we could finesse that?

I think all is here : "Tax loopholes might have some utility, but they should be capped so that they don't become a way for wealthy people to avoid contributing to the public wealth as they should." Basically, OK to exemptions, as long as you can't cumulate them in a way that renders income tax utterly void.

I approve of this language.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I don't know that anybody actually makes a billion dollars a year, but I like these brackets. Astute readers will note that these are actually lower than US tax brackets until the 200K mark.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I would support such tariffs. Remember, we were talking about definitively conditional support for free trade, not generalized support.

I really don't see how a tax rate that leaves a person with ten million dollars per annum in income makes owning even the largest corporations 'hard', particularly since I like to think we're emphatically not neoliberal or a party of business.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We do? I was under the impression we were or should be a little more leftist than that (though not Marxist-Leninist by any means).

By all means, this is a conversation we as a party should have. Could you draw up a set of brackets you might like to see?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Here's my recommendation:

<30K 0%
30K-60K, 10%
60K-120K: 15%
120K-200K: 25%
200K-500K: 35%
500K-1M: 45%
1M-10M: 55%
10M-100M: 65%
100M-1B: 75%
>1B: 85%

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I agree.

If nobody else has anything to say about this I'm putting it to a vote.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It is, but he's already in full campaign mode and shows no signs of needing or wanting to let up over the next few months. Perhaps we should make the official endorsement if any later but is it, let us say, the sense of the Party that Tweed would be the right stuff for Atlasia?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's make it happen.

It is the sense of the Party that the revivification of Atlasia as laid out in Boss Tweed's current platform is of absolute necessity for any serious Presidential candidate in these lethargic times.

Good? It even has a Paul Verlaine reference.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I certainly think we should.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I may run for an at-large Senate seat.

I shall call it:

The Crazy Labor Senatorial Double-Win!

I should remind you that I am an at-large Senator.

I am, however, thinking of not running for reelection.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I may run for an at-large Senate seat.

I shall call it:

The Crazy Labor Senatorial Double-Win!

I should remind you that I am an at-large Senator.

I am, however, thinking of not running for reelection.

Why Nathan ?

To focus full-time on you crazies, of course! I'm sure as Hell not retiring from Atlasia.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Any objections?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think we should support Tweed's revolution.

Any objections to this, either? If we want to learn a bit more about Tweed's provisional government before aligning ourselves with it that's fine, but are there any objections in principle?

You have until the end of the calendar day, Eastern Daylight Time, to object to either this or Snowstalker's appointment.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither should we sit idly by and allow the nation to continue to decay into oblivion.

Democracy at the level of the nation-state is a means to an end. The end has not been met.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither should we sit idly by and allow the nation to continue to decay into oblivion.

Democracy at the level of the nation-state is a means to an end. The end has not been met.

I would be very concerned if the Labor Party goes down this path.

The answer to a time of stagnation (especially before November this year) is not a revolution.

This scenario would provide drama, but also more likely to force more people out of Atlasia than compel them to come, let alone maintain numbers.

I'd be similarly concerned if the Labor Party became complacent and neoliberal, but if there's not much appetite for this within the Party I'll advise you that my personal support for this need not govern you. Tweed gave me an ultimatum to decide now earlier today and I decided yes but this very well might turn out to have been a bad idea and I admit that. I would still appreciate it if I could get at least some of you on board with this, because I'm convinced that something drastic has to be done. What I do know is that we can't go on like this. There's a certain level of inevitable risk involved.

I won't be resigning any of my offices at this time.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Neither should we sit idly by and allow the nation to continue to decay into oblivion.

Democracy at the level of the nation-state is a means to an end. The end has not been met.

I would be very concerned if the Labor Party goes down this path.

The answer to a time of stagnation (especially before November this year) is not a revolution.

This scenario would provide drama, but also more likely to force more people out of Atlasia than compel them to come, let alone maintain numbers.

I'd be similarly concerned if the Labor Party became complacent and neoliberal, but if there's not much appetite for this within the Party I'll advise you that my personal support for this need not govern you. Tweed gave me an ultimatum to decide now earlier today and I decided yes but this very well might turn out to have been a bad idea and I admit that. I would still appreciate it if I could get at least some of you on board with this, because I'm convinced that something drastic has to be done. What I do know is that we can't go on like this. There's a certain level of inevitable risk involved.

I won't be resigning any of my offices at this time.

Look, you're completely within your rights to advocate what you want.

I just think it's going to end badly. I'm not saying this out of self-interest of any kind, I say this as someone who sees nothing positive in this kind of destabilisation.

Understood. Thank you for your advice.

I'd like to keep this debate open longer. Say, through tomorrow? Or until Tweed gets back to us. I've asked him to drop in and explain to us why he thinks this is a good idea.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Let's make it happen.

It is the sense of the Party that the revivification of Atlasia as laid out in Boss Tweed's current platform is of absolute necessity for any serious Presidential candidate in these lethargic times.

Good? It even has a Paul Verlaine reference.

I withdraw my previous acceptance pending further information about the nature of Tweed's ideas.

The ideas I was referring to at that point were his presidential platform, which was before he declared his revolution.

Again, Tweed, get in here, please.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Thank you, Tweed.

It should be remembered that Tweed was indeed, as he claims, one of the driving forces behind the creation of Atlasia in the first place. It should also be remembered that the current mockup structure of Atlasia does not fit the vision that many of us have already decided that we functionally agreed with.

What, exactly, do you guys think the point is in continuing this game as it has been?