Innovation & Reformation PAC

[Oakvale]

I'll make the case for you giving all your money to the Oakvale/Cincinnatus ticket.

We're the only independent ticket left in the race, beholden to no special interests or third parties. Both me and Cinci have long records we're proud of and the experience to work with members of all parties to reach sensible compromises, not attempt to ram through our agenda without any input from alternative veiwpoints.

I governed what's by many measures the most left-leaning region in the country, but nonetheless I made sure to work with and include our more conservative and right-wing members in the conversation. I want to be a President who will govern the same way - something that will be especially important given the likelihood that the Senate will be full of members who disagree with me on a lot of stuff.

Just to address foreign policy for a moment, given your position - I actually strongly opposed then-Senator Napoleon's End to Imperialism Act, as we've discussed before - while I understand where Napoleon's coming from, IMO the legislation as introduced was counterproductive given that President Polnut had already implemented a very reasonable timetable for the withdrawal of Atlasian forces. I'm not a hawk, by any means, but I don't believe in the almost reckless foreign policy a certain axis in the Senate has tended to support.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have.

[Oakvale]

I'm not a hawk, by any means, but I don't believe in the almost reckless foreign policy a certain axis in the Senate has tended to support.

Ummmm........that certain axis was 7 out of 10 Senators. Atlasia is much better off now that we are not involved in conflicts with these nations.

I agree with you that we're better off. My point was - and I brought this up at the time - that the legislation was unnecessary given that the administration had already implemented a timetable for withdrawal.

[Oakvale]

I'm not a hawk, by any means, but I don't believe in the almost reckless foreign policy a certain axis in the Senate has tended to support.

Ummmm........that certain axis was 7 out of 10 Senators. Atlasia is much better off now that we are not involved in conflicts with these nations.

I agree with you that we're better off. My point was - and I brought this up at the time - that the legislation was unnecessary given that the administration had already implemented a timetable for withdrawal.

Your point is not valid. The President may be Commander in Chief but that does not entitle the executive branch to exclusive authority over foreign policy. The Senate plays a part in the process and to ignore the Senate's role would be in fact, counterproductive. Thankfully President Polnut was willing to work with the Senate and we had a national conversation about the future of our nation.

I don't agree. Let's take a look at the legislation as proposed -

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To start with, I'm reasonably sure the Senate doesn't actually have the power to withdraw or deploy troops - that's the President's domain. But let's leave that aside for a moment.

The bill was a reckless solution to a problem that didn't even exist. A withdrawal that rapid would have caused a disastrous power vacuum in Afghanistan and Iraq, and, quite possibly, allowed Gadaffi to win the civil war in Libya and regain control of the country.

This isn't about whether or not you support the various wars, but how Atlasia could leave in a responsible and gradual manner - while I understand the desire to get all Atlasian forces back as soon as humanly possible, I think Atlasia has a responsibility in that situation to smoothly manage the transition to local military and security forces.

In the end, the Act was amendmended into something responsible and reasonable - that was the Act that your cited seven Senators voted for, almost unrecognizable to the proposed text you introduced and which I objected to shortly before being dragged from the Senate floor.