Marokai/Purple State Platform Extravaganza!

[Purple State]

So you've all got some light bedtime reading.

I'm very much looking forward to the discussions on our platform. Have at it!

[Purple State]

I go away for 10 days and we don't get any meaningful feedback (no offense Yank)? Come now, what's the point of these elections?

[Purple State]

Here is an example of what friendly policy discussion should look like:

Middle Class Stability: Recognizing the dire straits that the economy is in and how burdensome taxes can be, we support lowering the 14% and 25% tax rates for ten years. This is designed to put more purchasing power in the hands of Atlasia's middle class, and provide them the stability and relief they need.

National Debt: The easiest way we can solve our national debt is fixing our national deficit. I'm confident that under my administration, we won't have to raise the debt ceiling, and if it is ever proposed that we do, there's a good chance we could fix the problem by cutting back on spending. I support small cuts across the board so we can start eliminating our national debt. This won't happen over night, but will take months, and even years.

Unemployment: Some candidates are focused heavily on the past, pointing to key legislation they helped get through in the pass. While it's a great feeling to pass a bill, the effects of the bill are what's more important. And I can't really say we've been making great economical decisions in the past when we still face a high unemployment and growing debt. Our administration will look to more funding for job creation, giving tax credits, and cutting the programs that don't benefit our nation. We'll work to make entitlement reform. In such trying times, I think raising taxes should be a last resort, especially on small businesses, and I will strongly urge the Senate to not pass any tax hikes.

I'm a little curious about these three paragraphs.

First, you come out for lowering taxes on the middle class. I think I can get on board with that.

But then you heighten worry about the national debt, which is not only pretty under control in Atlasia due to legislation different than the US, but also may increase when you cut taxes.

Now one option would be to reduce spending, but the last paragraph rules that out in the short-term by promising "no new taxes" while also promising new spending.

You do promise strategic spending cuts and entitlement reform, but I'm not sure what you mean by the former and the latter is ripped from the US, which I'm not sure applies as smoothly to Atlasia as you make it seem.

So could you tell us what exactly you would be cutting/reforming to help close the under control deficit?

Would anyone like to take a crack at our proposals? I don't believe they are unassailable, after all Marokai wrote them (though that would be pretty cool.)

[Purple State]

What's your position on Western Seccesion Independence?

The Midwest has always been an interesting and fun region. As long as their actions don't conflict with Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 of the Constitution, they are free to act autonomously of the federal government.

[Purple State]

We really can't have a policy debate in this game? Well that's boring. It would be nice if Tmth or Oakvale or their respective running mates would at least tell us we are wrong about something or other so I can feel like this race is a contest of ideas, not just personalities.

[Purple State]

We really can't have a policy debate in this game? Well that's boring. It would be nice if Tmth or Oakvale or their respective running mates would at least tell us we are wrong about something or other so I can feel like this race is a contest of ideas, not just personalities.

You've ran out of things to attack us on, so you're attacking us for not attacking you and running clean campaigns???

I'm calling you out for not challenging us on policy. If you agree with everything in our platform then you should drop out. If you disagree then that's (hopefully) important for the game. And really, this election is really boring and purely based on personality if there are no real policy discussions.

You still never answered my question of what exactly it is you plan to cut to reduce the deficit, which seems to be a major part of your campaign.

[Purple State]

Find a sense of humor, dude. I was joking.

I've stated disagreements in my platform, such as term limits on Senators. With more issues now to discuss, I will be discussing those issues with both Oakvale and Marokai at our next debate, which I look forward to have soon. Your more than welcome to debate those issues with Dallasfan and Snowy, as I'm sure y'all will be having another debate as well.

I think both Oakvale and I can agree that there are similarities between all three of our political beliefs. What's extremely important here is which candidate has the leadership skills to bring all sides together working to make this nation better. Someone with a bi-partisan, independent record who has a history of getting along well with all sides. I believe that as President, I'd bring that to the table. At the end of the day (well, technically the beginning), when I think of this nation in 8 months, I'd like for everyone in the game to be able to say they're having fun playing. Because if people lose their excitment and energy for the game, the game's as good as dead.

The debates are nice, but it kills excitement to have these discussions only every few weeks. Has this campaign been fun? Not in the last two weeks it hasn't, because no one has made an effort to seriously engage in the meat of the race. Instead it has all been about in-fighting and drama.

You can keep saying it's about fun, but this game is only fun when people have policy to disagree on. Once that goes away, all that's left is personality contests and that is when you start to see these silly dramas where people get hurt. And those don't look very fun.

Instead of calling out Marokai's character, which seems to be all you do these days, why not actually engage in a policy discussion that we are trying to start and you seem loathe to join?

So let me ask: Aside from term-limits, which I've already debated with Duke et al., what part of our platform do you disagree with? And as I asked almost a week ago, what specific programs would you cut to reduce the deficit?

[Purple State]

I'll make a simple statement.  Many of your platform positions represent an overreaching of executive power in Atlasia.

This simulation is a game based on the United States, and as such, the constitution reflects in many key ways the United States constitution.  This is not a parliamentary democracy like those of Europe.  I think the Marokai/PurpleState platform blurs the lines too much between the legislative and executive branches of government, which are separate for very good reasons.

While an Oakvale/Snowguy administration would have no problem working with the legislature (Senate) to move our own agenda forward, it is not our position, as executives, to legislate.  

I believe our administration would keep the roles of the presidency and the senate clearly defined and intact.  If we follow those guidelines already put in place by our constitution, the game will run smoothly and it makes it a simulation that everybody can be a part of instead of concentrating power into the hands of one person.

Now this is actually something I can engage with. Thank you for those remarks Snowguy.

In the view of this ticket, it comes down to how engaged the executive should be in Atlasia. While obviously our efforts require the consent of the Senate, we feel as though the executive branch should have an agenda and try to drive policy.

As you can see right now, the Senate is all over the place, addressing a host of unrelated issues with no strategic vision. A lack of strategy leads to scattershot tactics. What an active and engaged executive with a clear agenda can do is set a strategy for the Senate that really helps the game along. If you look back at the PS/Marokai administration, we had a clear cut game reform agenda that really shifted the track that the game was on in a positive way.

Now, is it possible we have over-learned those lessons? Absolutely, and we recognize that our current platform, to be enacted, will require a heavy load of working together with senators and Atlasians to find common ground. It can't be handed down from on high. But hopefully it provides a vision that will help guide debate and policy in a certain direction. And that makes the game more interesting, more exciting, and more fun.

[Purple State]

Ironic that you're questioning me for calling out Marokai on his character, when you're practically doing the same thing to me now. I'm not attacking Marokai's character at all Actually, I didn't attack him once in that post. You ask me to point out differences, yet when I do, I'm questioned for "calling out Marokai on his character". There needs to be some consistancy in your attacks.

Yes, I obviously think I'd make a better leader than Marokai, as well as Oakvale. And I'm sure Marokai thinks he'd make a better leader than Oakvale and myself, and Oakvale probably thinks he'd make a better leader than Marokai or I. Big. Deal.

Look at how you responded to my original post... Now look at how Snowguy responded. End of story.

If you are interested in having a policy debate, now is your chance.

[Purple State]

Instead of calling out Marokai's character, which seems to be all you do these days, why not actually engage in a policy discussion that we are trying to start and you seem loathe to join?

I just reviewed every post of Tmth's from the last two weeks and found that not one of them even referenced Marokai by name, much less did anything that could be construed as "calling out his character."  It seems to me that either your perceptive powers are extremely limited, or you're projecting.

That took you all of ten minutes, did it? Fast reader we have here.

[Purple State]

I will address this only once, though I'm still amazed that you are avoiding a policy debate for this petty stupidity.

So Tmth, you respond to my request for a policy debate with this:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, I asked for a discussion of policy. Snowguy had no problem with this. You, on the other hand, felt it necessary to avoid any discussion of policy and instead note who can get "along well with all sides." If you, wormyguy and Dallasfan can't read deeper into that than the words on the page... I'm just saying you three are either being disingenuous or thick.

So we've cleared that up. Now do you plan on having an intelligent debate about policy, as Snowguy has initiated on behalf of his ticket, or will you insist on focusing exclusively on irrelevant absurdities for the rest of this campaign?

[Purple State]

I am doing my best to run a clean campaign, and I think almost everyone can agree that I have run one. Therefore, I don’t appreciate you trying to attack my character by accusing me of attacking others. If you’re going to throw accusations like that out there in the open, all I ask is that you at least back it up with some proof, which you keep avoiding to do.


Obviously you didn’t even both to read my last post, as I did try to engage in policy discussion. This is the second time I have brought term limits into my discussion, yet instead of addressing that, you continue to show the same aggressive, spiteful behavior.

After my joking response, in which you appeared to take way too seriously, I spoke on my disagreement on term limits. Yet instead of addressing that, which someone who was really serious about “policy debate” would do, you continue to attack other elements of my post. I don’t know if you just don’t want to discuss term limits or are caught up in other drama too much, but I find it annoying that I’m brining in policy on multiple occasions and the person who is attacking me on not addressing policy fails to address it.

I mentioned in a previous post that the term-limits debate really was already exhausted by Duke. We could rehash it, but I'm not sure there is much point to that.

So why not address my previous question about the deficit?

[Purple State]

It gets a bit odd when I ask, in post after post, to have a policy debate, but every response avoids one and instead continues addressing an issue I don't really care about. And when Tmth asks me to provide proof or retract my comments, and I do provide proof, he locks the thread.

Seriously, stop goading me into the pettiness and just answer the one question I've asked over and over: If you are really committed to cutting the budget deficit, what specific programs do you plan to cut? Show me the money.

[Purple State]

I need to know what the respective campaigns opinions are of Jake Matthews.

Speaking for myself and not the ticket, I generally have no opinion on any of you as individuals, given this is a game over the internet where we all assume characters and try to have fun. As long as Jake isn't actively trying to ruin the fun, I couldn't care less.

[Purple State]

I need to know what the respective campaigns opinions are of Jake Matthews.

Speaking for myself and not the ticket, I generally have no opinion on any of you as individuals, given this is a game over the internet where we all assume characters and try to have fun. As long as Jake isn't actively trying to ruin the fun, I couldn't care less.

It seems as though Pound The Rock is out to prove that I am a non-human life form or merely a troll, which I am neither.

I mean, Joe is usually a non-human life form and I don't think anything less of him for it. I just want people to enjoy the game. If everyone plays nice then that is good enough for me.

[Purple State]

I'm in the mood for another VP debate or an interview by any/all Atlasian papers. The paucity of substantive discussions so far is boring.