Dixiecrat Party

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

[albaleman]

I'm not joining the Dixiecrat party unless it moves farther to the left. The good old Jesus Christ Party suits me just fine.

Miles has joined the party so the party is going to move slightly left, but what would something that the two of you want?

I'll consider it.

Considering how the word "Dixiecrat" was born, I don't like you.

To suggest that KS21 and Miles are racist is a bit ridiculous.

This Dixiecrat party is not racist, it's just centrist.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

[Sewer]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.  


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked.  

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.  


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked.  

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

It is a well established fact that the use of the words, "racist", "nazis" and "fascist" by the far left is entirely strategic. The theory is that if they can convince enough people to beleive you are one of those three, you won't win against them on this issue or that issue. One of the most common usages of those terms is against those like me, who feel that maybe securing the border would be smart in an age of Terror, that giving amnesty to illegals will only encourage more and make the first part harder, and that letting a large amount of unskilled laborers in serves neither them nor those of all races in those same fields. I am sure they think if they can label such a reasonable position as racist, they can prevent the common sense reforms to make it happen and thus continue serving the special interests who prefer the status quo.

My party, the RPP, has been a frequent target of such stupidity by these young radical far lefties, once even submitting in one of our logo competitions, a picture with Hitler and a bunch of Nazi symbols.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

Bob Ethridge is not a Blue Dog. He's just using it as a sort of protection.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

Bob Ethridge is not a Blue Dog. He's just using it as a sort of protection.

Yea, and many others do as well.

[-]

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

You see the problem with them is they are all grouped in with the Etheridge types. So you really have to go case by case, and see who is just a special interest whore and who is a trully a conservative or centrist dem.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards. 


Yea, can we stop this "He's racist" crap. I am sure Miles and KS are both fine individuals.

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR) is probably the best example. He calls it as he sees it. He was rightly disgusted when Obama told him "The difference between 1994 and 2010 is you have me."

John Edwards is disgusting, I couldn't stand him even before word of the scandal got out. And I have not met a trial lawyer I've liked. 

Thank you both for defending me, as I am a believer in equality for everyone. Dixiecrats today are centrists, not segregationists.

And albaleman, I am open to changes in the platform, nothing is set in stone!!!!

Berry is okay as far as I know.

lol, those aren't dixiecrats, those are blue dogs you are describing. Many of them are trial lawyers, union allies or are in the pocket of big tobacco.

I suppose we have diffferent definitions. Blue Dogs and Dixiecrats are similar in my mind, Dixiecrats being slightly more conservative.

Perhaps you could give me some RL examples.

I just keep thinking of people like Etheridge and Edwards.

More like Bobby Bright and Gene Taylor, I think.

I admire Congressman Taylor, but Bright is very odd. I didn't like his "Fire Congress" photo.

A lot of Congressman are "odd".

Bob Ethridge is not a Blue Dog. He's just using it as a sort of protection.

Yea, and many others do as well.

I've found that many Blue Dogs are fakes.

[Badger]

Considering how the word "Dixiecrat" was born, I don't like you.

To suggest that KS21 and Miles are racist is a bit ridiculous.

This Dixiecrat party is not racist, it's just centrist.

True. As utterly horrible the historical ramifications of the name are, in Atlasia terms it's pretty clear they're a center left party with populist leanings (not an altogether bad thing in my book )

[Oakvale]

I don't think I'll be joining any time soon, but new parties are always good, so I wish you well.

[-]

I don't think I'll be joining any time soon, but new parties are always good, so I wish you well.

Thanks.

[-]

It's obvious by looking at the poll that if my party is to survive, the platfrom needs to be moved left.

Any suggestions on what would make the platform better for those who voted "No, platform needs to be moved to the left"?

[albaleman]

There are a few things you could change on policy, such as favoring stronger economic regulations and being more supportive of unions but here's my main suggestion: RECRUIT, RECRUIT and RECRUIT. Reach out to Atlasians far and wide urging them to join the Dixiecrat Party. Convince us the Dixiecrat Party is a viable alternative to the other major parties. And then of course there is the issue of the name which, in all fairness, does have a bit of a checkered past.

[-]

Miles and I are proud to present

THE OFFICIAL PLATFORM OF THE DIXIECRAT PARTY

We are a socially conservative party, with exceptions of abortion and physician assisted suicide (if patient is within 6 months of death and mentally stable). This means we are

•   Anti-gay marriage (civil unions are permitted)

•   Pro-death penalty

•   Anti-affirmative action, which is an antiquated policy that has become reverse discrimination

On environmental issues, we are a party of proud progressives.

•   We are in favor of a cap-and-trade system.

•   We need to protect our forests for future generations

•   We are in favor of making sure that renewable energy sources are the least expensive, and if that means temporary rate hikes, so be it.

On foreign policy, our position is simple- DON’T TREAD ON ME. In other words, we don’t attack you if you don’t attack us. If you attack us, well, let’s just say you’ll regret it. We are firmly against the Preemption doctirine.

On economic issues, we believe in regulating industry to the point where the working Joe isn’t taken advantage of.

•   We believe in limited unions. Just enough so wages are fair, but they don’t grow large enough to do what they did to Senator Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas.

•   We are in favor of eliminating derivatives once and for all.

•   We need to regulate Wall St. investors, not let the investors go crazy and ruin the savings of average Americans.

•   We believe that free trade can work, but the playing field must be level for all. To protect American workers, we need to impose tariffs to make making things in America the cheaper alternative.

•   The Fair Tax is NOT FAIR. The rich need to be taxed more than the little guy.

On campaign finance, the Supreme Court ruling was unacceptable. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT CITIZENS. And the CoC should tell us where the money is coming from.

And we are in favor of banning legislators from EVER becoming lobbyists.

We hope you'll join.

KS21

Co-Chairman

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

[Miles]

The official DXP logo

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I like the platform, enough to join the party; however, I have a huge problem with the section on labor.  Unions are extremely important in ensuring fairness to workers, and the idea of weakening them is absurd.

[-]

I like the platform, enough to join the party; however, I have a huge problem with the section on labor.  Unions are extremely important in ensuring fairness to workers, and the idea of weakening them is absurd.

The point is not so much weakening labor as much as it is to prevent them from becoming left-wing CoC's.

One of the ideas I like is using the "Baby Bell" (AT&T) proposal and dividing unions like the AFL-CIO (just to name an example) into smaller chunks where they can still demand rights from corporations but not enough that they can use their funds to knowck politicians out.

[-]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

I agree fully. I was a protectionist till 2007. I grew up in rural NE PA. Right in the middle of downtown Hallstead PA is a collapsed rusted Steel plant.

The reason I gave up on it was I realized several critical facts. Among them are that trade is now far more important to the economy then it was just ten years ago more or less decades ago. And we saw what Smoot Hawley did with trade accounting for 3% of the economy in 1930, international business accounts for 15% to 20% of US GDP now, if not more. Granted the effect of Smoot-Hawley is exaggerated by the effect of Depressionary deflation and separating the data is impossible. But we know it was negative as US cars and radios (our most important exports in 1930) were shut out of most European countries. We won't know  ever know how many people Henry Ford layed off because of decreased demand in New York and what was decreased demand in Italy. When demand falls its not like its tagged based on origin on the final spreadsheet ( ).

Now we have seen to more things occur and that is as you said, we are fighting against significantly lower wages, meaning we would need very high tariffs to overcome the disadvantage. Those high levels would be retaliated against. Anything less wouldn't be effective because we are still at a disadvantage. But then you reach a point where you risk wiping out 20% of the economic demand that is based on trade. Thats I would advise to be carefull about it.

One more thing that we have seen is that, tariffs to protect one industry like the steel in 2001 damaged another weak manufacturing industry, the auto industry. Yet those tariffs didn't prevent significant layoffs in Steel industry and probably actually caused layoffs in the auto industry. So once again, you have to be carefull to look for such unintended consequences. And effectiveness of the tariff has to be considered.

This is your platform, not mine, it should represent your beleifs and the beleifs of the party you want to create. I just wanted to provide you with an arguement that you may not have seen before in this combination on trade, and to urge caution in pursuing tariffs to avoid unintended consequences.

[-]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

I agree fully. I was a protectionist till 2007. I grew up in rural NE PA. Right in the middle of downtown Hallstead PA is a collapsed rusted Steel plant.

The reason I gave up on it was I realized several critical facts. Among them are that trade is now far more important to the economy then it was just ten years ago more or less decades ago. And we saw what Smoot Hawley did with trade accounting for 3% of the economy in 1930, international business accounts for 15% to 20% of US GDP now, if not more. Granted the effect of Smoot-Hawley is exaggerated by the effect of Depressionary deflation and separating the data is impossible. But we know it was negative as US cars and radios (our most important exports in 1930) were shut out of most European countries. We won't know  ever know how many people Henry Ford layed off because of decreased demand in New York and what was decreased demand in Italy. When demand falls its not like its tagged based on origin on the final spreadsheet ( ).

Now we have seen to more things occur and that is as you said, we are fighting against significantly lower wages, meaning we would need very high tariffs to overcome the disadvantage. Those high levels would be retaliated against. Anything less wouldn't be effective because we are still at a disadvantage. But then you reach a point where you risk wiping out 20% of the economic demand that is based on trade. Thats I would advise to be carefull about it.

One more thing that we have seen is that, tariffs to protect one industry like the steel in 2001 damaged another weak manufacturing industry, the auto industry. Yet those tariffs didn't prevent significant layoffs in Steel industry and probably actually caused layoffs in the auto industry. So once again, you have to be carefull to look for such unintended consequences. And effectiveness of the tariff has to be considered.

This is your platform, not mine, it should represent your beleifs and the beleifs of the party you want to create. I just wanted to provide you with an arguement that you may not have seen before in this combination on trade, and to urge caution in pursuing tariffs to avoid unintended consequences.

Your argument has a point. Effectiveness has to be considered. But I would like to point out the Japanese have tarrifs on many of our products, and it has worked quite well for the Japanese corporations in weeding out remaining American products from tehir markets. Tarrifs can work. THey have in teh past. But as you point out, they can backfire in some cases.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Citizens versus United wasn't simulated in Atlasia.


You are right, Corporations aren't people. Corporations are just pieces of paper. It's just that the piece of paper describes a legal agreement between several people to do something. If it is an organization with an opinion. Does this "Collective of people" not have the same rights as those that make up the composite parts of the collective to "inform, remind, and perusade on an issue"

I am no fan of the Chamber of Commerce but if you are going to demand they open their books then all the groups need to open up their books including the leftwing ones who have been funnelling money from unions and trial lawyers into elections for decades. I hope you also realize that the reason they want to "open" the books of the CoC is so they can intimidate them Chicago style one at a time. Notice how Obama and his buddies don't want to open up the books of all these type of organizations. SEIU gave Obama millions (international organization and it admits it can't guarrentee that overseas money didn't go to Obama). BP gave Obama millions. (BP used to stand for "British" Petroleum). This is not a effective policy position taken by the Obama administration, it is a desperate election year stunt. Even the media and Democratic insiders are running scared because of this "stunt" because its a double edged sword.

I support 100% next day disclosure of all political expenditures via the internet and its sources. All organizations, All candidates. I do however agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. The collective group of people should have the same freedom of speech as the individual people that make up the group.

I think its a fine coherent platform. I would suggest removing mentions of the Chamber of Commerce and make a broad based requirement of full disclosure, openness, and transparency.


I can see myself agreeing with many of theses. I would warn to be carefull with the Tariffs. Despite all the hype there is nothing policewise that can be done that would be effective unless it is done to the degree that would cause a reversal of globalization. The process to get there will be very painfull, very painfull. Tariffs are really of limited effective use now.

I want disclosure on both sides. Tarriffs are one of the few ways I fell we can prtotect Americans (Atlasians) from cheap labor abroad.

I agree fully. I was a protectionist till 2007. I grew up in rural NE PA. Right in the middle of downtown Hallstead PA is a collapsed rusted Steel plant.

The reason I gave up on it was I realized several critical facts. Among them are that trade is now far more important to the economy then it was just ten years ago more or less decades ago. And we saw what Smoot Hawley did with trade accounting for 3% of the economy in 1930, international business accounts for 15% to 20% of US GDP now, if not more. Granted the effect of Smoot-Hawley is exaggerated by the effect of Depressionary deflation and separating the data is impossible. But we know it was negative as US cars and radios (our most important exports in 1930) were shut out of most European countries. We won't know  ever know how many people Henry Ford layed off because of decreased demand in New York and what was decreased demand in Italy. When demand falls its not like its tagged based on origin on the final spreadsheet ( ).

Now we have seen to more things occur and that is as you said, we are fighting against significantly lower wages, meaning we would need very high tariffs to overcome the disadvantage. Those high levels would be retaliated against. Anything less wouldn't be effective because we are still at a disadvantage. But then you reach a point where you risk wiping out 20% of the economic demand that is based on trade. Thats I would advise to be carefull about it.

One more thing that we have seen is that, tariffs to protect one industry like the steel in 2001 damaged another weak manufacturing industry, the auto industry. Yet those tariffs didn't prevent significant layoffs in Steel industry and probably actually caused layoffs in the auto industry. So once again, you have to be carefull to look for such unintended consequences. And effectiveness of the tariff has to be considered.

This is your platform, not mine, it should represent your beleifs and the beleifs of the party you want to create. I just wanted to provide you with an arguement that you may not have seen before in this combination on trade, and to urge caution in pursuing tariffs to avoid unintended consequences.

Your argument has a point. Effectiveness has to be considered. But I would like to point out the Japanese have tarrifs on many of our products, and it has worked quite well for the Japanese corporations in weeding out remaining American products from tehir markets. Tarrifs can work. THey have in teh past. But as you point out, they can backfire in some cases.

We need to crack Japan open, somehow.  It has worked in establishing monopolies on goods in Japan, but its part of the reason for Japans stagnation over the last few decades. The irony of Japan is they did the exact opposite of what we did (heavily regulated banks, taxed dividends, encouraged saving) and the result was worse.