America the Beautiful: An American Political RP (OOC)

[Alozia]

Elizabeth Turner
@LizTurner

---

Might fuck around and publish a series of diaries or something. Name them after myself too.

[Deblar]

(Image)
Elizabeth Turner
@LizTurner

---

Might fuck around and publish a series of diaries or something. Name them after myself too.

Liked and retweeted by Literally everyone

[The Sarangtus Lands]

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4b/Seal_of_the_United_States_Congress.svg/170px-Seal_of_the_United_States_Congress.svg.png Image )

---

Character Information Sheet

NS Nation Name: The Sarangtus
Character Name: Dr. Albin Bukuroshe
Character Gender: Male
Character Age: 53
Character Height: 180cm
Character Weight: 66kg
Character Position/Role/Job: President of the United States Chamber of Commerce (2019-)
Appearance: Joe DioGuardi
Character State of Origin: California
Character State of Residence: California
Character Party Affiliation: Republican
Main Strengths: Very rich, has lots of Washington connections thanks to his father and his experience in lobbying, very popular with the 'nouveau riche' of Silicon Valley Techs, being one himself
Main Weaknesses: A notorious lobbyist, low popularity among those who see themselves as 'working-class' (which would make him bleed votes in both the Midwest and Flyover Country), openly bisexual, implicated in Panama Papers.
Biography: Born to Albanians who fled Hoxha's region and who owned large amounts of stock in real estate, Albin attended Harvard-Westlake school, and - despite being keen with business - decided to take programming, soon taking it up as his fashion as he found computers and systems interesting, instead as his elder brother was set to receive management of the company instead of him. He soon took his doctoral degree in computer science from MIT, and began to set off, using about $20 million in capital from his family, to establish California Technologies, which focused on establishing internet infrastructure, and began to expand their efforts across California.

However, Albin used a $50 million loan from his brother to keep CT in business, along with expanding operations to ISP and router networks. Coinciding with the beginning of the .com bubble, the extra flow of websites and traffic to the internet gave CT a new lease on life, making hundreds of millions in profits every year, ever expanding. Soon enough, California Industries and California Business opened up, with one opening up gaming to the casual gamer, and the other helping businesses transition from the old world to the new, at one point becoming the largest supplier of beenz, as it offered businesses large amounts of beenz (somewhere between the thousands and the millions) to sign up, depending on how big and stable they were. In 2003, a short-lived "California Credit" service opened up, being wiped out at the .com crash. In fact, the .com crash was particularly devestating for California Online Conglomerates (as it was now called), with California Technologies on the brink of collapse with its stock price collapsing from $55 to $10 in one day. California Industries, and California Business held their own however, retaining about 80% of their original holdings.In that day, Albin lost a whopping $1 billion in assets, with the burgeoning California Technologies spiralling towards collapse, and which also marked bad news for California Industries and California Business, as the COC mostly relied on California Technologies. However, as recoveries were made, California Technologies (which relied on the general internet traffic, along with residential use) began to recover, albeit not by too much, only having recovered to $36 in 2010 and $75 today. The California Online Conglomerates, after braving the crash, decided to continue aggressive expansion, buying several search engines (California Search), set up an email service (CMail) and even the (short-lived) return of California Credit, which only burgeoned Albin's wealth further.

This rapid expansion came to a screeching halt in 2008, with California Credit and California Business(as it was a bank-caused recession, after all) causing a contraction in California Online Conglomerates' other holdings. Albin, in order to promote his self-image (as California Online Conglomerates was probably more well-known than Bukuroshe Real Estate), changed the names as follows:

California Online Conglomerate: Bukuroshe E-Holdings
California Technologies: Bukuroshe Servers/Bukuroshe Internet (the two were split, into the hoster and the ISP respectively)
California Industries: Bukuroshe Gaming
California Business: Bukuroshe Business Advancements
California Credit: Cancelled Altogether.

Whilst always holding libertarian political views, Bukuroshe decided to make his first folly into politics by getting involved with the [not-Kochs] and became a prominent businessman in support of the Tea Party, speaking out in favour of them and throwing his political weight (and money) behind Americans for Prosperity and other such organisations, and was hired for political affairs at Americans for Prosperity, doing lots of events, but also working on campaign organising for many candidates in open Republican primaries. He also, independently, helped support Ron Paul's 2012 campaign through fundraising for him.

During his time at Americans for Prosperity, he built up his profile in Washington, becoming an influential power player, becoming friends with the Chair of the RNC and linking himself firmly with the establishment despite some differences in opinion, and endorsed John Burke for President, becoming a fundraiser for his campaign, although he was quickly beaten out of the water by Arnold Wolf, whom he, just like the rest of the Republican establishment, stuck his head in the sand about and left to coast to victory without him, much to his disappointment. He was also implicated in the Panama Papers that year based off some tax charges, but was able to avoid any form of prosecution.

Regardless, he adjusted quickly, becoming a close ally of Wolf on economic issues and keeping discipline within the Republican Party when it came to more contentious economic issues such as the AHCA, although he did oppose Wolf's shutdown of the government to fund border security due to his pro-immigration stances. He also got one of his close allies, [not-Mnuchin], appointed to the Treasury Department, and was able to wield much influence that way, and was able to sneak in much of his clients' demands into the budgets.

The 2018 Midterms, despite his best attempts, resulted in failure. However, in failure comes opportunity, as the President of the US Chamber of Commerce stepped down for unrelated reasons, and so he quickly took the spot thanks to pulling a few strings. However, he came into what was effectively a burning house, and had quickly made it his task to reunify the organisation and solidify its position in the Republican Party, reorganising itself just in time for Wolf's declaration of non-intent to run for reelection, and he had immediately supported Richardson as soon as it was clear nobody else of importance would enter. He backed Richardson through thick and thin, donating large sums to his campaign and working to strengthen his infrastructure. As soon as he won the primary, he took the task of helping his campaign in the general, overseeing a powerful super PAC which took advantage of microtargeting and a general modernisation strategy using the internet, which helped turn out young Republicans to a point, along with generally swaying moderates and the politically disinterested to Richardson's side.

Happy with the outcome of the election, he now stands content, and ready to get to the task of 'assisting' the governance of the country...He is quite wound up by the outcome of the ARA though, along with Richardson's inauguration speech, but is willing to brush it aside to continue working with Richardson so long as he holds to the line.

Other Info: Net worth $850 million. Political views:

Housing: End all public housing programs, focus on veterans instead.
Healthcare: Private healthcare. No restrictions. Consider large-scale medicaid and medicare reform + malpractice and red tape cutting.
Student Loans: Let the status quo continue, but provide large subsidies for STEM education.
Minimum Wage: Cut the minimum wage.
War: End arms sales to Saudi Arabia, reinvest the money spent on foreign interventions into increased cyberdefence and the protection of American assets, along with combatting Russian imperialism. Soft-power foreign policy, attempt to enforce power over the UN. Cut down nuclear weapons to 2,500, but update them all.
Climate Change: Switch to nuclear power, angrily blame it at India and China and promote market-based solutions.
Money In Politics: Remove all restrictions.uphold Citizens United vs FEC.
Trade: Pro-NAFTA, pro-WTO, pro-TTIP, reduce all tariffs to 1%, basically release the gates on trade.
Immigration: Loosen immigration restrictions for working immigrants, increase screenings, promote immigration and make work visas easier to get.
Corporations: Cut the corporate tax rate, push back on anti-trust laws in secret.
Taxes: Abolish all taxes in favour of a 15% consumption tax + a 10% flat income tax (yes, CGT will be abolished)
Transport: Cut down on public transport, spend more on car infrastructure
Voting: Keep as-is, promote voter ID.
Guns: Mild background checks.
Education: School choice and school vouchers.
Criminal Justice: Abolish public prisons, subsidise private prisons, castrate rapists. Focus on rehabilitation and community re-integration. Fund a large cybercrime taskforce.
Science and Technology: Give an extra $100 billion boost in the NASA budget, promote it to a Department, increase funding for science education, technical colleges and research massively.
Drugs and Alcohol: Legalise marijuana at the federal level.
Relief Bill: Targeted at businesses and businesses directly.

I have read and accept the rules of the roleplay: The Sarangtus Lands

Do Not Remove: 84721

[Sarenium]

Dem Debate will happen after GOP Debate, Jovu and Cob are moderating/running that

[Jovuistan]

Good debate so far guys.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

You won't even let me in the chat because one of your admins had a tantrum about a point made about gerrymandering. How is that maturity? you slow walked my approval the character and came up with some rubbish excuse that it didn't make sense to have an Indian American character, when if that was a legitimate concern rather than something you made up as an excuse to stall you'd have said it immediately rather than give me other things to change. How is that maturity?

multiple admins have shown me repeated, unwarranted hostility about my 'maturity' and 'experience' and when I point out how paper thin your 'maturity' and 'experience' is, there a problem? You seriously expect me to suck up with how I've been treated? Absolutely not.


I'm not going to spend months and weeks doing RP for a state I don't care about doing one for If I get what I asked for in exchange exchange for the unfairness I've been repeatedly be shown I can forgive and forget, but other than that, no way am I going to do anything other than tear into the rubbish I constantly see from you lot.

I dedicated way too much energy trying to write up a response to this. Not worth it. Please, reflect on your behavior and do better in the future.

Only thing I will discuss, since I've been asked to - the chat you referred to is a private space, unrelated to the RP. You were invited to it by a person that was not authorized to do so and were subsequently removed when you overstayed your welcome by making arrogant remarks.

This is false.

Alozia thought that gerrymandering worked by the party in charge of the maps creating districts where they had massive majorities. I explained that the goal of the gerrymandering party is to stack the opposition's voters into extremely safe districts to have their votes wasted, while the gerrymandering party tries to create districts that are safe, but not too safe. For example in Wisconsin, the average R leaning seat is R +9 and the average D leaning seat is D+21.5. As such, 6 out of 8 seats districts lean republican.

My argument was that wave elections tended to over turn those thinly held majorities, which can make gerrymandering backfire, So my point was that I'd rather increase voter turn out that ban gerrymandering when given the two options. I also said that I didn't particularly care about gerrymandering.

While I was making that argument using examples, I was muted in chat. I respectfully DMed about it and make my case, using the example of gerrymandering backfiring in Texas. Alozia for whatever reason didn't get my point but he told he he'd unmute me to make my case because he thought he was in the right.

I made the same point I made in the DM in the chat and when he asked if I thought gerrymandering was bad I said that it's a loaded question that's a bit like asking of violence is bad. Of course it's bad in abstract, but, for example, if one side is gerrymandering for an advantage, refusing to gerrymander out of principle just makes gerrymandering more attractive for that other side.

He then put our 'arguments' to vote in the chat. I didn't really say anything at this point, but when people voted that I was correct, he banned me from that chat.

So yeah, from that moment I've been pretty hostile in response to unwarranted hostility. Everything I've said here regarding the DMs I have saved as screenshots, but for obvious reasons I can't do that for the chat. But if it's not deleted, it's all there to see. Happened October 1st.

[Alozia]

I dedicated way too much energy trying to write up a response to this. Not worth it. Please, reflect on your behavior and do better in the future.

Only thing I will discuss, since I've been asked to - the chat you referred to is a private space, unrelated to the RP. You were invited to it by a person that was not authorized to do so and were subsequently removed when you overstayed your welcome by making arrogant remarks.

This is false.

Alozia thought that gerrymandering worked by the party in charge of the maps creating districts where they had massive majorities. I explained that the goal of the gerrymandering party is to stack the opposition's voters into extremely safe districts to have their votes wasted, while the gerrymandering party tries to create districts that are safe, but not too safe. For example in Wisconsin, the average R leaning seat is R +9 and the average D leaning seat is D+21.5. As such, 6 out of 8 seats districts lean republican.

My argument was that wave elections tended to over turn those thinly held majorities, which can make gerrymandering backfire, So my point was that I'd rather increase voter turn out that ban gerrymandering when given the two options. I also said that I didn't particularly care about gerrymandering.

While I was making that argument using examples, I was muted in chat. I respectfully DMed about it and make my case, using the example of gerrymandering backfiring in Texas. Alozia for whatever reason didn't get my point but he told he he'd unmute me to make my case because he thought he was in the right.

I made the same point I made in the DM in the chat and when he asked if I thought gerrymandering was bad I said that it's a loaded question that's a bit like asking of violence is bad. Of course it's bad in abstract, but, for example, if one side is gerrymandering for an advantage, refusing to gerrymander out of principle just makes gerrymandering more attractive for that other side.

He then put our 'arguments' to vote in the chat. I didn't really say anything at this point, but when people voted that I was correct, he banned me from that chat.

So yeah, from that moment I've been pretty hostile in response to unwarranted hostility. Everything I've said here regarding the DMs I have saved as screenshots, but for obvious reasons I can't do that for the chat. But if it's not deleted, it's all there to see. Happened October 1st.

This is an outright lie, you were arguing that gerrymandering is "bad, but so is war" stating pretty much that it is a fact of life and that instead of trying to fight gerrymandering people should just vote in larger numbers, citing Dallas county as an example of how people really, really believing in the power of their vote can just overcome gerrymandering by manifesting (ignoring the fact that the district was drawn in 2013 and there were significant demographic and partisan changes since then and 2018). Never said that gerrymandering is about creating R+3000 districts, but again you were too arrogant to take my point into account. Also, Texas literally has multiple R+20 and beyond districts but whatever, this is not a debate about gerrymandering, not anymore.

I never called a vote. That is just a blatant lie. I just asked people, again in a private space, if I'm going mad or are you actually defending gerrymandering. I was told to drop the argument because you were "whatabouting" me. Prime example right here:

I made the same point I made in the DM in the chat and when he asked if I thought gerrymandering was bad I said that it's a loaded question that's a bit like asking of violence is bad. Of course it's bad in abstract, but, for example, if one side is gerrymandering for an advantage, refusing to gerrymander out of principle just makes gerrymandering more attractive for that other side.

Also, you never said it was a loaded question (it was not and is not), you went straight to your "well, yeah, but so is war" argument.

I will not be throwing around DMs left and right because all of it was said in a space where people talked about stuff under assumption the things would not be released. There are private conversations there and I'm genuinely glad you don't have access to them because you cannot be trusted with private communications. There was a vote called by another member of that space whose poll included the options "Vote A if Alozia won, vote B if CSR won, vote C if you're a cuck". So... Option C won, by the way.

Quit complaining and lying about me purely because you didn't get to stay in a space you were not welcome in to begin with. Let's get back to the point this whole conversation is about - you not getting your way in this RP. Sorry you can't do the Governor of California right now, but those are the rules. Long standing rules. People need to prove their experience and ability to exist within this space before taking on a big role. Not that you care, you wanted it and didn't get it within a month, so you try to burn down the entire house, while there are other players who are also waiting to be able to play a major role, but unlike you they are patient because they understand there are long-standning rules that apply to everyone equally. That's how rules work, these rules are publicly available and you agreed to these rules.

You are not entitled to anything. Especially not entitled to circumventing the rules because you decided to enter a space to completely ignore its rules and not entitled to lying about me, so, keep my name out of your mouth and never talk about me again. This is my final word on the matter.

[Sarenium]

I dedicated way too much energy trying to write up a response to this. Not worth it. Please, reflect on your behavior and do better in the future.

Only thing I will discuss, since I've been asked to - the chat you referred to is a private space, unrelated to the RP. You were invited to it by a person that was not authorized to do so and were subsequently removed when you overstayed your welcome by making arrogant remarks.

This is false.

Alozia thought that gerrymandering worked by the party in charge of the maps creating districts where they had massive majorities. I explained that the goal of the gerrymandering party is to stack the opposition's voters into extremely safe districts to have their votes wasted, while the gerrymandering party tries to create districts that are safe, but not too safe. For example in Wisconsin, the average R leaning seat is R +9 and the average D leaning seat is D+21.5. As such, 6 out of 8 seats districts lean republican.

My argument was that wave elections tended to over turn those thinly held majorities, which can make gerrymandering backfire, So my point was that I'd rather increase voter turn out that ban gerrymandering when given the two options. I also said that I didn't particularly care about gerrymandering.

While I was making that argument using examples, I was muted in chat. I respectfully DMed about it and make my case, using the example of gerrymandering backfiring in Texas. Alozia for whatever reason didn't get my point but he told he he'd unmute me to make my case because he thought he was in the right.

I made the same point I made in the DM in the chat and when he asked if I thought gerrymandering was bad I said that it's a loaded question that's a bit like asking of violence is bad. Of course it's bad in abstract, but, for example, if one side is gerrymandering for an advantage, refusing to gerrymander out of principle just makes gerrymandering more attractive for that other side.

He then put our 'arguments' to vote in the chat. I didn't really say anything at this point, but when people voted that I was correct, he banned me from that chat.

So yeah, from that moment I've been pretty hostile in response to unwarranted hostility. Everything I've said here regarding the DMs I have saved as screenshots, but for obvious reasons I can't do that for the chat. But if it's not deleted, it's all there to see. Happened October 1st.

Whatever happened in this chat is outside the scope of the RP, it is not affiliated to the RP and therefore is irrelevant. I would hope you are not attempting to blackmail Alozia over something like his private personal server, because that would be a different problem entirely and not one we're qualified to deal with here.

What is relevant is you ignoring completely what has been said by myself and other Admins. This is the last I will say of the matter and am happy to summarize for your convenience;

- You will not be playing a Governor of California, anytime in the foreseeable future.
- All avenues of appeal regarding the above are closed as you have exhausted them, see "Rule 1. The OP's words are the words of the Gods, but these Gods are not infallible, you can argue your position in a civil way but in the end their decision is final."
- Further discussion on this topic will be interpreted as spam of the OOC and hence result in much stronger disciplinary actions from the Admin Team. Furthermore, further discussion will not receive acknowledgement or response.

As always you may spam my TGs or Discord if you so choose, but my mind is made up, and there is unanimous consensus among the Admin Team on the California matter. You may of course, apply for a more smaller, less majorly consequential state to be Governor of; but definitively, not California.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

225 words exactly. That's the limit for 90 seconds, right?

[Yaruqo]

Edit Note: Added Jack Vichter as a sponsor of the ALLIES Act per Sarenium’s request in the Congress thread.

[Helliniki Katastasis]

225 words exactly. That's the limit for 90 seconds, right?

You must be fun at parties.

[Velahor]

225 words exactly. That's the limit for 90 seconds, right?

I just did 3 paragraphs that I could read out loud in 30 seconds each. Am I going over?

[Yaruqo]

Come on, y’all, don’t get into it in the OOC. Just let it be.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

225 words exactly. That's the limit for 90 seconds, right?

You must be fun at parties.

yeah, I don't go back for seconds until everyone's had their first.

however if ~300 words is considered 90 seconds, I'll gladly go up to that.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Anyone curious as to what Kurian is referring to should check out the HIGH ROAD TO ECONOMIC JUSTICE: Report of the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice

ESOPs are the real life answer to the problem of automation among republicans and it's been around since at least 1974, when Regean first mentioned it at a speech to Young Americans for Freedom. It's this rather than promising to restrict it/tax it. Which is kind of a democratic plan?

Except not really, the real life centrist democratic plan is retraining (and sometimes ESOPs), the radical centrist plan is UBI and the Progressive-Socialist Plan is a more aggressive version of ESOPs and retraining.

AFAIK nobody actually says "restrict automation by increasing taxes and providing incentives to hire people."

The most prominent person I've seen push an automation tax is bill gates, but that was to replace payroll and income taxes of would be workers, not to really stop automation and I've seen "tax incentive to hire workers instead of machines" absolutely nowhere.

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

Anyone curious as to what Kurian is referring to should check out the HIGH ROAD TO ECONOMIC JUSTICE: Report of the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice

ESOPs are the real life answer to the problem of automation among republicans and it's been around since at least 1974, when Regean first mentioned it at a speech to Young Americans for Freedom. It's this rather than promising to restrict it/tax it. Which is kind of a democratic plan?

Except not really, the real life centrist democratic plan is retraining (and sometimes ESOPs), the radical centrist plan is UBI and the Progressive-Socialist Plan is a more aggressive version of ESOPs and retraining.

AFAIK nobody actually says "restrict automation by increasing taxes and providing incentives to hire people."

The most prominent person I've seen push an automation tax is bill gates, but that was to replace payroll and income taxes of would be workers, not to really stop automation and I've seen "tax incentive to hire workers instead of machines" absolutely nowhere.

This is a political RP not your college macroeconomics class.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Anyone curious as to what Kurian is referring to should check out the HIGH ROAD TO ECONOMIC JUSTICE: Report of the Presidential Task Force on Project Economic Justice

ESOPs are the real life answer to the problem of automation among republicans and it's been around since at least 1974, when Regean first mentioned it at a speech to Young Americans for Freedom. It's this rather than promising to restrict it/tax it. Which is kind of a democratic plan?

Except not really, the real life centrist democratic plan is retraining (and sometimes ESOPs), the radical centrist plan is UBI and the Progressive-Socialist Plan is a more aggressive version of ESOPs and retraining.

AFAIK nobody actually says "restrict automation by increasing taxes and providing incentives to hire people."

The most prominent person I've seen push an automation tax is bill gates, but that was to replace payroll and income taxes of would be workers, not to really stop automation and I've seen "tax incentive to hire workers instead of machines" absolutely nowhere.

This is a political RP not your college macroeconomics class.

apparently not because republicans raising taxes on something the business community wants to do when there better alternatives is not Roleplay.

Anyway, here is Wisconson's RL republican senator supporting incentives for ESOPs in 2020

[Democratic Peoples republic of Kelvinsi]

This is a political RP not your college macroeconomics class.

apparently not because republicans raising taxes on something the business community wants to do when there better alternatives is not Roleplay.

Anyway, here is Wisconson's RL republican senator supporting incentives for ESOPs in 2020

When governing you are going to propose unpopular things, when campaigning you want to put your best foot forward.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

apparently not because republicans raising taxes on something the business community wants to do when there better alternatives is not Roleplay.

Anyway, here is Wisconson's RL republican senator supporting incentives for ESOPs in 2020

When governing you are going to propose unpopular things, when campaigning you want to put your best foot forward.

Senators from Paul, to Sanders, to Cotton, to Coons, to Sinema to McConnell to Warren to Collins have supported ESOP legislation at one point or another. It has huge transpartisan support and during a catastrophic trade war and with automation front billed as an issue there's no way that it something like that shouldn't be represented as a solution.

[Gordano and Lysandus]

When governing you are going to propose unpopular things, when campaigning you want to put your best foot forward.

Senators from Paul, to Sanders, to Cotton, to Coons, to Sinema to McConnell to Warren to Collins have supported ESOP legislation at one point or another. It has huge transpartisan support and during a catastrophic trade war and with automation front billed as an issue there's no way that it something like that shouldn't be represented as a solution.

Low information Republican primary voters don't do acronyms, I don't know what part of that isn't apparent. You're not pitching to the conference here.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senators from Paul, to Sanders, to Cotton, to Coons, to Sinema to McConnell to Warren to Collins have supported ESOP legislation at one point or another. It has huge transpartisan support and during a catastrophic trade war and with automation front billed as an issue there's no way that it something like that shouldn't be represented as a solution.

Low information Republican primary voters don't do acronyms, I don't know what part of that isn't apparent. You're not pitching to the conference here.

Wisconsin primary voters gave trump 35% in 2016 to Cruz's 48%. Wisconsin's primary voters were more college educated than the general population.

This is even further filtered by it being a special election.

Kurian is running a wonkish campaign in a three way race for a reason. Just like how she's also going to be broadly in favor of giving a chance at legality for undocumented immigrants, because that's also what the vast majority of Wisconsin republican primary voters polled for in 2016.

please don't punish research instead of a meme understanding of republican politics, there is no way i could feasibly know all your memes.

[Velahor]

When governing you are going to propose unpopular things, when campaigning you want to put your best foot forward.

Senators from Paul, to Sanders, to Cotton, to Coons, to Sinema to McConnell to Warren to Collins have supported ESOP legislation at one point or another. It has huge transpartisan support and during a catastrophic trade war and with automation front billed as an issue there's no way that it something like that shouldn't be represented as a solution.

It's not the solution that's wrong, it's the way you're selling it. Since I have a character in the debate, I will refrain from making any further comments that could steer your direction.

[Cybernetic Socialist Republics]

Senators from Paul, to Sanders, to Cotton, to Coons, to Sinema to McConnell to Warren to Collins have supported ESOP legislation at one point or another. It has huge transpartisan support and during a catastrophic trade war and with automation front billed as an issue there's no way that it something like that shouldn't be represented as a solution.

It's not the solution that's wrong, it's the way you're selling it. Since I have a character in the debate, I will refrain from making any further comments that could steer your direction.

I can't really imagine there is a more effective way of selling this than "It is the literal word of Ronald Reagan that this is the solution to this exact problem and it has also has bipartisan support."

I suppose you could go "you the workers put your labor producing the profits that allowed the purchase of the robots so you deserve a share" but that would be a direct line to being attack as a marxist argument, which is exactly what the take would been had Kurian gone that route, instead of some vague flapping around about it being too 'wonkish' and complex. As if deciding what does and what doesn't count as automation wouldn't be a mess.

But that's ok, I'll just compile a list of (not-x) senate politicians that have supported ESOPs because their real life counterparts did. There's a ton of them. Everyone else can have their chars be against it from some weird reason.

[Vaquas]

It's not the solution that's wrong, it's the way you're selling it. Since I have a character in the debate, I will refrain from making any further comments that could steer your direction.

I can't really imagine there is a more effective way of selling this than "It is the literal word of Ronald Reagan that this is the solution to this exact problem and it has also has bipartisan support."

I suppose you could go "you the workers put your labor producing the profits that allowed the purchase of the robots so you deserve a share" but that would be a direct line to being attack as a marxist argument, which is exactly what the take would been had Kurian gone that route, instead of some vague flapping around about it being too 'wonkish' and complex. As if deciding what does and what doesn't count as automation wouldn't be a mess.

But that's ok, I'll just compile a list of (not-x) senate politicians that have supported ESOPs because their real life counterparts did. There's a ton of them. Everyone else can have their chars be against it from some weird reason.

Its not about policy, the policy is fine, its about the average Republican primary voter in the year 2021 after education polarization has radically shifted things.

[Jovuistan]

Kurian is giving a college lecture to people who hate college.