NationStates

New Cobastheia wrote:Political Ideology: Keynesianism, Democratic Socialism, Left-Libertarianism, Left-Populism, Classical Liberalism

Could you give me an example of someone who fits all those political ideologies? I'd like to get a grasp on her character.

What will the democrats want to change in the bill? I just want to know if Wright is going to negotiate with the democrats over it.

Helowi wrote:What will the democrats want to change in the bill? I just want to know if Wright is going to negotiate with the democrats over it.

Fischer vetoed it because of an amendment made by House Republicans to reduce corporations' obligations to provide healthcare to their human employees. While Senate Democrats could be persuaded — they accepted the amendment, after all — it's unlikely it will get the 2/3rds vote necessary in the House with the amendment, because of the House Democrats, or without it, because House Republicans would then be opposed.

Zjaum wrote:

New Cobastheia wrote:Political Ideology: Keynesianism, Democratic Socialism, Left-Libertarianism, Left-Populism, Classical Liberalism

Could you give me an example of someone who fits all those political ideologies? I'd like to get a grasp on her character.

I think the closest I could give you, of the politicians I know of, would probably be Tulsi Gabbard or maybe a Sherrod Brown type. What I was aiming for was kind of a Dave Rubin if he was a few more ticks to the left, although I'm not sure if I got the right ideologies as I was very tired when doing that part of the app.

Most of Classical Liberalism applies to her, except the part about Business, she sees a Free Market with Regulation as the best option aka no laissez-faire (Which is true for both Guess and Randolph).

Basically, still on the Left, like Bernie Sanders or FDR left, but willing to work with Conservatives and Moderates more than usual, and even holding a few of there views, namely (For both Guess and Randolph) School Choice. Oh, and no identity politics either. Would use the term Regressive Left to describe a political opponent in her own Party.

This is what I meant by Left-Libertarianism: "Left-libertarianism sees peace, prosperity, cooperation and human flourishing as the ends, to which liberty is a means."
Democratic Socialism: Think Sanders
Keynesianism: Think FDR
Left Populism: Think Tulsi Gabbard or Sherrod Brown

And then to top it all off, add some Noam Chomsky into the equation and that what I was really going for.

If the political compass would help

If that didn't help, maybe some yes/no political questions could help?

New Cobastheia wrote:

Zjaum wrote:Could you give me an example of someone who fits all those political ideologies? I'd like to get a grasp on her character.

I think the closest I could give you, of the politicians I know of, would probably be Tulsi Gabbard or maybe a Sherrod Brown type. What I was aiming for was kind of a Dave Rubin if he was a few more ticks to the left, although I'm not sure if I got the right ideologies as I was very tired when doing that part of the app.

Most of Classical Liberalism applies to her, except the part about Business, she sees a Free Market with Regulation as the best option aka no laissez-faire (Which is true for both Guess and Randolph).

Basically, still on the Left, like Bernie Sanders or FDR left, but willing to work with Conservatives and Moderates more than usual, and even holding a few of there views, namely (For both Guess and Randolph) School Choice. Oh, and no identity politics either. Would use the term Regressive Left to describe a political opponent in her own Party.

This is what I meant by Left-Libertarianism: "Left-libertarianism sees peace, prosperity, cooperation and human flourishing as the ends, to which liberty is a means."
Democratic Socialism: Think Sanders
Keynesianism: Think FDR
Left Populism: Think Tulsi Gabbard or Sherrod Brown

And then to top it all off, add some Noam Chomsky into the equation and that what I was really going for.

If the political compass would help

If that didn't help, maybe some yes/no political questions could help?

Like a One-Nation Tory, maybe? Even though that's not an American term. Yet.

Vienna Eliot wrote:

Helowi wrote:What will the democrats want to change in the bill? I just want to know if Wright is going to negotiate with the democrats over it.

Fischer vetoed it because of an amendment made by House Republicans to reduce corporations' obligations to provide healthcare to their human employees. While Senate Democrats could be persuaded — they accepted the amendment, after all — it's unlikely it will get the 2/3rds vote necessary in the House with the amendment, because of the House Democrats, or without it, because House Republicans would then be opposed.

Alright. I think Wright will take a day off of campaigning and try to meet with Fischer and a couple of other house Democrats in order to listen to there demands and come up with a deal. Do you think I could do this or should I just focus on the election for now?

Helowi wrote:

Vienna Eliot wrote:Fischer vetoed it because of an amendment made by House Republicans to reduce corporations' obligations to provide healthcare to their human employees. While Senate Democrats could be persuaded — they accepted the amendment, after all — it's unlikely it will get the 2/3rds vote necessary in the House with the amendment, because of the House Democrats, or without it, because House Republicans would then be opposed.

Alright. I think Wright will take a day off of campaigning and try to meet with Fischer and a couple of other house Democrats in order to listen to there demands and come up with a deal. Do you think I could do this or should I just focus on the election for now?

I can't gauge how likely success would be — but it would be fun to RP Fischer and Wright meeting, especially since we haven't done much with Fischer.

Vienna Eliot wrote:-snip-

Based off of what Wikipedia says about One-nation conservatism, besides the conservative part, then yes. I'd say that works for describing Randolph and Guess.

I posted a post beginning the negotiations between the president and Wright. Post anytime you need to.

Helowi wrote:I posted a post beginning the negotiations between the president and Wright. Post anytime you need to.

Fun!

How many years has Wright served in the Senate? It's for an ad, but because I don't remember you ever mentioning the year he was elected in, I know it has to have at least been 2 years because you have to be 35 to be President and he was 33 when he became a Senator

New Cobastheia wrote:How many years has Wright served in the Senate? It's for an ad, but because I don't remember you ever mentioning the year he was elected in, I know it has to have at least been 2 years because you have to be 35 to be President and he was 33 when he became a Senator

Well, it has to be at least six years, since that's the minimum term length.

Zjaum wrote:

New Cobastheia wrote:How many years has Wright served in the Senate? It's for an ad, but because I don't remember you ever mentioning the year he was elected in, I know it has to have at least been 2 years because you have to be 35 to be President and he was 33 when he became a Senator

Well, it has to be at least six years, since that's the minimum term length.

But he can still run for another office while serving in the Senate.

Also, how many years was Egilson the Mayor? Also, you do know Red Bluff is under the Council-Manager System right? It's relevant for an ad.

New Cobastheia wrote:

Zjaum wrote:Well, it has to be at least six years, since that's the minimum term length.

But he can still run for another office while serving in the Senate.

Also, how many years was Egilson the Mayor? Also, you do know Red Bluff is under the Council-Manager System right? It's relevant for an ad.

Don't be silly! Everyone knows Red Bluff grew exponentially during the Famine of '28. It had to take on a strong mayor-council system to cope with the sudden population influx.

New Cobastheia wrote:How many years has Wright served in the Senate? It's for an ad, but because I don't remember you ever mentioning the year he was elected in, I know it has to have at least been 2 years because you have to be 35 to be President and he was 33 when he became a Senator

Wright has been in the senate for 4 years. Go ahead and aim your cannons.

Vienna Eliot wrote:

New Cobastheia wrote:But he can still run for another office while serving in the Senate.

Also, how many years was Egilson the Mayor? Also, you do know Red Bluff is under the Council-Manager System right? It's relevant for an ad.

Don't be silly! Everyone knows Red Bluff grew exponentially during the Famine of '28. It had to take on a strong mayor-council system to cope with the sudden population influx.

Good, I assumed it was canon that it has changed into a Strong Mayor-Council, just wanted to make sure

First presidential debate this weekend, just so everybody knows! We'll have a few minor news stories and one major news story before then, plus plenty of polling.

Ok, so I think I get the just of the Supreme Court decision, but I don't understand legal talk all that much so if you could explain it in laymen terms for me that would be great.

And just so I can be sure, The Supreme Court says the Third California Constitution is illegal, so would the Second one immediately go back into effect or like what because now I need to think of the effects of the ruling, and there are so many things I can think of.

I like how your getting more involved with events. Keep it up.

New Cobastheia wrote:Ok, so I think I get the just of the Supreme Court decision, but I don't understand legal talk all that much so if you could explain it in laymen terms for me that would be great.

And just so I can be sure, The Supreme Court says the Third California Constitution is illegal, so would the Second one immediately go back into effect or like what because now I need to think of the effects of the ruling, and there are so many things I can think of.

Basically, the Court (in a 5-4 decision) said that the semi-parliamentary model doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In other words, the fusion of the legislature and the executive branch, plus the election of the premier by the parliament (particularly in cases where underhang seats are used) is unconstitutional.

I personally would disagree with that opinion, for the record. But Gorsuch is gonna Gorsuch.

In terms of the practical effect, the Third Constitution is still in effect — and it probably will be for a couple of months, even through the election. A lower court now has to figure out whether just part of the Constitution has been stricken, or whether the whole thing is repealed, and what replaces what. So in practice, nothing has changed yet.

Vienna Eliot wrote:

New Cobastheia wrote:Ok, so I think I get the just of the Supreme Court decision, but I don't understand legal talk all that much so if you could explain it in laymen terms for me that would be great.

And just so I can be sure, The Supreme Court says the Third California Constitution is illegal, so would the Second one immediately go back into effect or like what because now I need to think of the effects of the ruling, and there are so many things I can think of.

Basically, the Court (in a 5-4 decision) said that the semi-parliamentary model doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In other words, the fusion of the legislature and the executive branch, plus the election of the premier by the parliament (particularly in cases where underhang seats are used) is unconstitutional.

I personally would disagree with that opinion, for the record. But Gorsuch is gonna Gorsuch.

In terms of the practical effect, the Third Constitution is still in effect — and it probably will be for a couple of months, even through the election. A lower court now has to figure out whether just part of the Constitution has been stricken, or whether the whole thing is repealed, and what replaces what. So in practice, nothing has changed yet.

Ok, good, I was just thinking in my head that California now needs to figure out how to elect practically everyone in its government in given that the Second and Third Constitution have some major differences, such as how one is elected, the existence of a Senate, the Top-2 system with FPTP vs STV/IVF, among other things.

And I'm just thinking in my head, the Supreme Court basically said that every nation that doesn't run on a Presidental System doesn't have a Republican Form of Government, which I wouldn't imagine would stick as a Government Policy but it fun to laugh at in my head.

New Cobastheia wrote:

Vienna Eliot wrote:Basically, the Court (in a 5-4 decision) said that the semi-parliamentary model doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." In other words, the fusion of the legislature and the executive branch, plus the election of the premier by the parliament (particularly in cases where underhang seats are used) is unconstitutional.

I personally would disagree with that opinion, for the record. But Gorsuch is gonna Gorsuch.

In terms of the practical effect, the Third Constitution is still in effect — and it probably will be for a couple of months, even through the election. A lower court now has to figure out whether just part of the Constitution has been stricken, or whether the whole thing is repealed, and what replaces what. So in practice, nothing has changed yet.

Ok, good, I was just thinking in my head that California now needs to figure out how to elect practically everyone in its government in given that the Second and Third Constitution have some major differences, such as how one is elected, the existence of a Senate, the Top-2 system with FPTP vs STV/IVF, among other things.

And I'm just thinking in my head, the Supreme Court basically said that every nation that doesn't run on a Presidental System doesn't have a Republican Form of Government, which I wouldn't imagine would stick as a Government Policy but it fun to laugh at in my head.

The Supreme Court once said black people weren't people and corporations were. One of these has been overturned.

Vienna Eliot wrote:

New Cobastheia wrote:
Ok, good, I was just thinking in my head that California now needs to figure out how to elect practically everyone in its government in given that the Second and Third Constitution have some major differences, such as how one is elected, the existence of a Senate, the Top-2 system with FPTP vs STV/IVF, among other things.

And I'm just thinking in my head, the Supreme Court basically said that every nation that doesn't run on a Presidental System doesn't have a Republican Form of Government, which I wouldn't imagine would stick as a Government Policy but it fun to laugh at in my head.

The Supreme Court once said black people weren't people and corporations were. One of these has been overturned.

Oh the government we under

I’m assuming Margin of Error is about 3-4%. Is that correct?

Helowi wrote:I’m assuming Margin of Error is about 3-4%. Is that correct?

Yes, forgot about that. I'll start including those. Of course, keep in mind that some pollsters are more reliable than others.