Advertisement
by Gordano and Lysandus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:37 pm
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:44 pm
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:Senator Goldman's interview with Will Callaghan of CNN is a veritable goldmine of Twitter talking points.
by Gordano and Lysandus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:46 pm
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:46 pm
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:50 pm
by HypErcApitAl » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:51 pm
by Gordano and Lysandus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:52 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Hell, I should probably stop doing these. Every single time I always fall flat on my face. Every single one of my characters always dies on arrival, and ends up collapsing. I'll keep trying my luck with Goldman and try to play the long game with Vohoffsky, but neither of them are doing too well...
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Fri Feb 21, 2020 4:58 pm
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Hell, I should probably stop doing these. Every single time I always fall flat on my face. Every single one of my characters always dies on arrival, and ends up collapsing. I'll keep trying my luck with Goldman and try to play the long game with Vohoffsky, but neither of them are doing too well...
It's not impossible to recover from, but I guess the only advice I can give you is to think a little bit more before you say something. You're a bright guy, WCC, and I know you can play an insightful, interesting character. Your characters aren't dull, by any means, and I like writing with you.
Don't measure the metric of your characters by their in-character success, measure it by the fun that is had by all around them.
by Gordano and Lysandus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:03 pm
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Yeah, that's the thing. This is what the good thing was about playing Taylor or Vohoffsky - the lack of forethought before speaking was a natural, inborn character trait. It seems that the main problem with my characters isn't that 95% of meat that they have (for example that 10,000 word essay that Taylor published which basically nobody gave any attention to, even when he was heavily controversial), but rather that 5% that always, always goes wrong.
But yes, thank you for your praise and your advice. I'll keep going.
by Main Nation Ministry » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:06 pm
by Lavar Baller » Fri Feb 21, 2020 5:37 pm
by Gordano and Lysandus » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:26 pm
Nikaton wrote:What’s the best political position for a newcomer to get involved and interact with other leaders?
by The World Capitalist Confederation » Fri Feb 21, 2020 6:29 pm
Nikaton wrote:What’s the best political position for a newcomer to get involved and interact with other leaders?
by HypErcApitAl » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:04 pm
different from the North. The Southern Colonies were very rebellious also, so it was kinda foreshadowing this great Rebellion. Federalism is a flawed ideology, and this Nation doesn't represent the people. Now, we all know the Framers were or had Libertarian ideas. Infact, one said 'I do not support what you say or do, but I support your right to say or do it.' Most of my base is/was Louisianian, and Louisiana reflects the South as it also was majority-agrarian and a sugar-based State. Obviously, I do not support Slavocracy, but what the South did was justified. If Hawaii or Vermont or another state wanted to secede and in the 21st century, I'd support that too. It doesn't make me racist or sexist since this applies to regions and not me saying "Oh, if Louisiana is sugar-based, what's the matter w/ Sharecropping?"very
by Meelducan » Sat Feb 22, 2020 4:59 am
Hypercapital wrote:Heck it, I'll do it anyways.
NS Nation Name: The Free Land of Hypercapital
Character Name: John B. Schwartz
Character Gender: Male
Character Age: 42
Character Height: 6'3
Character Weight: 180
Character Position/Role/Job: Senator
Appearance: (Photo preferred, not required)
Character State of Origin: Native Louisianian, though lived for six years in Hawaii with his parents when he was a tyke.
Character State of Residence: Louisiana
Character Party Affiliation: Green Party
Main Strengths: Skeptic, Loudspoken (Baritone voice), Open-minded, Decisive, Focused
Main Weaknesses: His skepticism can also be taken as a weakness, same w/ his tone-of-voice, 'too wacky and fringe'
Biography: (Minimum 2-3 paragraphs)
Johnathan Boulder Schwartz, shortened to John B. Schwartz or John S. was born and half-bred in Louisiana. He was born on October 20, 1978. John B. Schwartz, even in his youth, questioned everything to the chagrin of his parents and community. His mother was a stay-at-home mom, and his dad went from job-to-job. John B. Schwartz married a woman named Elizabeth S. Sharppe. John B. Schwartz was strict when it came to his education, and 'pounded the textbooks hard,' in his-own-words. John B. Schwartz describes himself as: "A proud Rebel, enthusiastic, and devoted," and many of his Louisianian supporters would agree.
Johnathan's teachers loved him, though some thought he was overly-opinionated. Johnathan ran for the Senate because he wanted to 'challenge the Status Quo' and 'present the minority opinion.' John ran for the Green Party despite not having Environmentalist values/that ideology. Johnathan saw it as "Giving America a choice, and not just Democrat or Republican." Johnathan sees himself as "Running the South first-and-foremost, while offering America differences in viewpoint and ideology." Johnathan is one of the few that represent the Green Party's minority in American Politics, and is also eyeing the Presidency. John thinks he'd make a good presidential candidate because: "I never backed down from a fight. I'm not afraid to flip America on its face, and I stay true to my allies." Johnathan is Pro-Canada, and Pro-Taiwan, seeing it as 'spitting dirt in the Red Dragon's eyes and stopping Maoist expansionism." Johnathan is pro-Canada, seeing their politics as "Intriguing and giving many voices to many peoples," wishing the United States did so as-well instead of being Left or Right.
Johnathan is thought of as being 'too wacky and fringe' as he floated around conspiracy theories and some pseudosciences. He also is very pro-2A, and thinks the Second Amendment is more than just guns, but is an amendment for anyone who wishes to defend themselves in any way possible. He thinks every American should defend themselves, and have that right to.
Other Info:
John's slogan was "For the Betterment of The People." John's presidential slogan would be "Not just for America, but for Prosperity." John is pro-Education, though Anti-Common Core. John attended Debate Club and French Club, and is fluent in French, Chinese, and German. John has a conversational understanding of Spanish and Hawaiian.
John questioned most of Wolf's policies and decisions, but supported him because 'He has a good personality. Wolf's a man's man." Although having a Jewish surname, John B. Schwartz isn't Jewish or born to Jewish parents.
John defending his Pro-Confederate stance/opinions on TV: "Look, the South was for States' Rights. America depended on the South, but people should agree and think that our region [referring to the South] should have some more autonomy and leniency. The Battle of Gettysburg; the bloodiest battle was uncalled-for. It's perhaps the only point to support the Geneva Convention; to make War safer. Now, the South grew to bedifferent from the North. The Southern Colonies were very rebellious also, so it was kinda foreshadowing this great Rebellion. Federalism is a flawed ideology, and this Nation doesn't represent the people. Now, we all know the Framers were or had Libertarian ideas. Infact, one said 'I do not support what you say or do, but I support your right to say or do it.' Most of my base is/was Louisianian, and Louisiana reflects the South as it also was majority-agrarian and a sugar-based State. Obviously, I do not support Slavocracy, but what the South did was justified. If Hawaii or Vermont or another state wanted to secede and in the 21st century, I'd support that too. It doesn't make me racist or sexist since this applies to regions and not me saying "Oh, if Louisiana is sugar-based, what's the matter w/ Sharecropping?"very
I have read and accept the rules of the roleplay: The Free Land of Hypercapital
Do Not Remove: 84721
by Meelducan » Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:09 am
Lavar Baller wrote:
NS Nation Name: Lavar Baller
Character Name: Francis "Frank" Doyle
Character Gender: Male
Character Age: 69
Character Height: 6 ft
Character Weight: 164 lbs.
Character Position/Role/Job: U.S. Junior Senator from Oregon (2009-), Representative for Oregon's 4th Congressional District (1986
Appearance:
(Image)
Character State of Origin: Washington
Character State of Residence: Oregon/D.C.
Character Party Affiliation: Democratic
Main Strengths: Strong foreign policy credentials, respected by his colleagues, likable, veteran
Main Weaknesses: Progressive in views but didn't endorse [not-Sanders], seen suspiciously recently for his meeting with Arnold Wolf prior to his inauguration, can sometimes be mild and too nice in his public appearances, not a strong debater, technocratic
Biography:
Francis Cormac "Frank" Doyle was born April 20th, 1950 in Seattle, Washington to Aileen Doyle (née Ronan) and Sean Doyle, a secretary in a real estate company. Frank was a decent school student and an even more adept athlete, and had hopes to study law in the future. But in his last year of high school in 1968 he was drafted to fight in the Vietnam War. At the time Frank was personally against the war in Vietnam and was volunteering for [not Nixon]'s campaign due to the candidate's anti-draft stance, so it was cruel irony that Frank himself ended up being drafted. Regardless of his personal opposition to the war, Frank decided that it was his duty to serve his country in precarious times, so he made no attempt to apply for student deferral or other means of escaping service.
His eight weeks of training weren't enough to prepare him for the warfare in the jungles of Vietnam. Frank was a member of the Black Lions Battalion, which was a well known regiment for its effectiveness in battle; they were even allegedly targets of the Viet Cong, who offer a bounty for every last Black Lion soldier's death. Frank, despite his athleticism and strong build, felt exhausted from marching through the jungles all day with 50-pound packs, occasionally stopping in intervals to clear the enemy. He wrote back home saying that "he didn't have the energy to march in any protest march, but this war is worthless." He hated the environment of not knowing whether to trust civilians, who were often killed by his unit in battle in suspicion of them being Viet Cong sympathizers. Worse, he was disgusted that most of the people who had been sent off to die by their government were either people of color, working class young people, or those who weren't otherwise wealthy and successful in life.
Frank was lucky; he survived the year until his return in 1969. He was a changed man upon returning; quiet, more pensive and disillusioned with the idea of government. That said, his patriotism had not been diluted by the experience; if anything, it strengthened his resolve to serve his country by improving it. He got into U.C. Davis after his return, where he majored in International Affairs. He met his future wife, Taylor, at college; they married in 1974. With an interest in national security and defense policy, Frank received his MA degree in International Security Affairs from the National War College at the National Defense University in 1976.
His wife's family was from Oregon, and so they moved to Portland, where Frank worked at the Oregon Center for Public Policy until 1980, when he was hired as an adjunct professor of Political Science and Global Affairs. He was quite happy in the job, where he got to broaden his own knowledge of the field by meeting with other experts; he soon started writing columns in local papers which were often critical of the Reagan Administration's strategy of escalation against the Soviet Union. He was especially critical of Reagan's signature Strategic Defense Initiative, which Frank saw as a wasteful expenditure of limited resources that could be targeted towards diplomatic efforts. He was also a staunch opponent of the Reagan Administration's support for counterinsurgency efforts by right-wing regimes, while also supporting insurgents against left-wing governments. Frank always reiterated his opposition to communism, but also claimed it was counterproductive to stoke the flames of division global division between political ideologies. In 1984 he personally supported [not Gary Hart] in the Democratic presidential primaries, who he publicly praised for being one of only four senators to vote against an amendment to President Reagan's MX missiles proposal that would have granted an additional $300 million to the program, which aptly characterized Ronald Reagan's policy of wasteful military spending in Frank's eyes. He voted for [not Mondale] in the general election.
In 1986, he left his post at the University of Portland to run for office, specifically for Oregon's 4th congressional House district, vacated by a retiring incumbent Democratic congressman. He was supported by the public policy and academic community, and his good combination of policy experience and youthfulness served him well. Frank narrowly won in a competitive three-way primary against two State Senators; the margin was 35%–33%-31%. He won the general election easily. He was re-elected in subsequent elections with little to no competition.
In the House, Frank was a politician of the New Deal Liberal mould - an above-average liberal on economic and global issues, but not on all social issues. He was a loud opponent of the Glass-Steagall Repeal, and sponsored legislation to introduce a financial transaction tax. On abortion, he was pro-choice but against federal funds for abortion, and consistently voted for the Hyde Amendment; he wasn't always socially illiberal, voting against the Defense of Marriage Act and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Although he voted for the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Frank was also an early opponent of the Iraq War, saying at the time: "I am an opponent of Saddam Hussein, but an opponent also, of the sanctions that have killed a million Iraqi children and an opponent of this administration's apparent desire to plunge the Middle East into a new and devastating war without sufficient evidence of the threat posed by this nation."
He cast votes against virtually every free-trade deal, from NAFTA to PNTR with China. Frank also voted against the PATRIOT Act, claiming it was a gross overreach on personal liberties. During his time in the House, he also passed several bills, one of which expanded community health centers and others that dealt with securing funding for the VA. He was a defender of better programs for Veterans, as a veteran himself.
In 2008, he left the House to challenge the incumbent Republican Senator from Oregon. It was uphill climb, especially considering the fact that the incumbent was not particularly unpopular. Frank played up his veteran credentials and his experience in the House, hitting the incumbent Senator for his votes to invade Iraq. Frank also endorsed Senator [not-Obama] at the time, even when [not-Clinton] was the frontrunner. The Illinois Senator also came to Oregon to personally campaign for Frank. The general was a tough fight, with most polls showing Frank up by less than three points or tied. He soon gained the support of Oregon AFL-CIO, who liked his stances on trade and worker's rights. He received a lot of financial support from the DSCC, who were eager to steal this particular seat; influential donors and Democratic PACS also helped his campaign. Frank ended up edging out the incumbent, 49%-45%.
In the Senate, Senator Doyle has been a vocal leader on foreign policy, serving on the Armed Services Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, and as the ranking member on the Committee on Foreign Relations. He also sits on the Committee on Veterans Affairs and the Budget Committee. Sen. Doyle was cautiously against the U.S. military intervention in Libya in 2011, where he publicly stated that "the President is setting a dangerous precedent by unilaterally beginning and continuing a military campaign in a foreign nation without consulting Congressional leaders, risking American lives and expending taxpayer dollars." His comments against the Libya intervention were widely seen as a reason why he was not selected as [not-Hillary Clinton's] replacement in 2012 as Secretary of State or as Defense Secretary, positions which he was seen as a frontrunner to occupy in the [not Obama] Administration.
In February of 2016, right before Iowa, Senator Doyle endorsed [not-Clinton]; her victory wasn't a sure bet when he endorsed her, and the move angered many [not-Sanders] supporters who were expecting the anti-war, pro-worker Senator to support the democratic socialist from Vermont. It was seen as a move to endear himself to the [not-Obama] establishment whom he had previously angered, which cost him a top position in the cabinet. He delivered a widely applauded speech at the DNC which appealed to the values of Democrats, calling for unity even if individuals held policy disagreements. He was a frequent campaign surrogate for [not-Clinton] in the general, and attacked the moral character of Arnold Wolf; he also strongly cautioned against electing Wolf, who he claimed was unpredictable and not true to his word - a foreign policy disaster in the making.
After the election of Wolf, Doyle accepted a request for a meeting with the president-elect; this move was widely panned in the media and by the public, who saw it as an opportunist move to gain a position in the new president's cabinet. The two did, in fact, discuss their shared policy views, especially on non-interventionism and troop withdrawal. He was ultimately not offered a position due to his links to [not-Clinton]. He has been a critic of the Wolf Administration's policy on Iran and Israel-Palestine. He is considering a run for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.
Other Info:
I have read and accept the rules of the roleplay: (Your Nation's Name Here)
Do Not Remove: 84721
by Dentali » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:21 am
The World Capitalist Confederation wrote:Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
It's not impossible to recover from, but I guess the only advice I can give you is to think a little bit more before you say something. You're a bright guy, WCC, and I know you can play an insightful, interesting character. Your characters aren't dull, by any means, and I like writing with you.
Don't measure the metric of your characters by their in-character success, measure it by the fun that is had by all around them.
Yeah, that's the thing. This is what the good thing was about playing Taylor or Vohoffsky - the lack of forethought before speaking was a natural, inborn character trait. It seems that the main problem with my characters isn't that 95% of meat that they have (for example that 10,000 word essay that Taylor published which basically nobody gave any attention to, even when he was heavily controversial), but rather that 5% that always, always goes wrong.
But yes, thank you for your praise and your advice. I'll keep going.
by Dentali » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:24 am
Gordano and Lysandus wrote:Nikaton wrote:What’s the best political position for a newcomer to get involved and interact with other leaders?
We've got lots of progressive Democrats, and lots of Senators. Either Republican Senators, or moderate Democratic House members, or Republican House members, we could use more of. If you don't want to carry a lot of responsibility and seniority from the get-go, I'd recommend the House.
by Dentali » Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:24 am
Hypercapital wrote:Heck it, I'll do it anyways.
NS Nation Name: The Free Land of Hypercapital
Character Name: John B. Schwartz
Character Gender: Male
Character Age: 42
Character Height: 6'3
Character Weight: 180
Character Position/Role/Job: Senator
Appearance: (Photo preferred, not required)
Character State of Origin: Native Louisianian, though lived for six years in Hawaii with his parents when he was a tyke.
Character State of Residence: Louisiana
Character Party Affiliation: Green Party
Main Strengths: Skeptic, Loudspoken (Baritone voice), Open-minded, Decisive, Focused
Main Weaknesses: His skepticism can also be taken as a weakness, same w/ his tone-of-voice, 'too wacky and fringe'
Biography: (Minimum 2-3 paragraphs)
Johnathan Boulder Schwartz, shortened to John B. Schwartz or John S. was born and half-bred in Louisiana. He was born on October 20, 1978. John B. Schwartz, even in his youth, questioned everything to the chagrin of his parents and community. His mother was a stay-at-home mom, and his dad went from job-to-job. John B. Schwartz married a woman named Elizabeth S. Sharppe. John B. Schwartz was strict when it came to his education, and 'pounded the textbooks hard,' in his-own-words. John B. Schwartz describes himself as: "A proud Rebel, enthusiastic, and devoted," and many of his Louisianian supporters would agree.
Johnathan's teachers loved him, though some thought he was overly-opinionated. Johnathan ran for the Senate because he wanted to 'challenge the Status Quo' and 'present the minority opinion.' John ran for the Green Party despite not having Environmentalist values/that ideology. Johnathan saw it as "Giving America a choice, and not just Democrat or Republican." Johnathan sees himself as "Running the South first-and-foremost, while offering America differences in viewpoint and ideology." Johnathan is one of the few that represent the Green Party's minority in American Politics, and is also eyeing the Presidency. John thinks he'd make a good presidential candidate because: "I never backed down from a fight. I'm not afraid to flip America on its face, and I stay true to my allies." Johnathan is Pro-Canada, and Pro-Taiwan, seeing it as 'spitting dirt in the Red Dragon's eyes and stopping Maoist expansionism." Johnathan is pro-Canada, seeing their politics as "Intriguing and giving many voices to many peoples," wishing the United States did so as-well instead of being Left or Right.
Johnathan is thought of as being 'too wacky and fringe' as he floated around conspiracy theories and some pseudosciences. He also is very pro-2A, and thinks the Second Amendment is more than just guns, but is an amendment for anyone who wishes to defend themselves in any way possible. He thinks every American should defend themselves, and have that right to.
Other Info:
John's slogan was "For the Betterment of The People." John's presidential slogan would be "Not just for America, but for Prosperity." John is pro-Education, though Anti-Common Core. John attended Debate Club and French Club, and is fluent in French, Chinese, and German. John has a conversational understanding of Spanish and Hawaiian.
John questioned most of Wolf's policies and decisions, but supported him because 'He has a good personality. Wolf's a man's man." Although having a Jewish surname, John B. Schwartz isn't Jewish or born to Jewish parents.
John defending his Pro-Confederate stance/opinions on TV: "Look, the South was for States' Rights. America depended on the South, but people should agree and think that our region [referring to the South] should have some more autonomy and leniency. The Battle of Gettysburg; the bloodiest battle was uncalled-for. It's perhaps the only point to support the Geneva Convention; to make War safer. Now, the South grew to bedifferent from the North. The Southern Colonies were very rebellious also, so it was kinda foreshadowing this great Rebellion. Federalism is a flawed ideology, and this Nation doesn't represent the people. Now, we all know the Framers were or had Libertarian ideas. Infact, one said 'I do not support what you say or do, but I support your right to say or do it.' Most of my base is/was Louisianian, and Louisiana reflects the South as it also was majority-agrarian and a sugar-based State. Obviously, I do not support Slavocracy, but what the South did was justified. If Hawaii or Vermont or another state wanted to secede and in the 21st century, I'd support that too. It doesn't make me racist or sexist since this applies to regions and not me saying "Oh, if Louisiana is sugar-based, what's the matter w/ Sharecropping?"very
I have read and accept the rules of the roleplay: The Free Land of Hypercapital
Do Not Remove: 84721
by Nikaton » Sat Feb 22, 2020 7:18 am
Dentali wrote:Gordano and Lysandus wrote:
We've got lots of progressive Democrats, and lots of Senators. Either Republican Senators, or moderate Democratic House members, or Republican House members, we could use more of. If you don't want to carry a lot of responsibility and seniority from the get-go, I'd recommend the House.
Make a character you can be passionate about, thats the first goal you should have. We do need more republicans in the house though
by Dentali » Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:21 am
Return to Portal to the Multiverse
Users browsing this forum: No registered users