The Presidency of Apolytonia (Campaign Thread)

[MrWhereItsAt]

I think, in such a situation, Trip is saying that he would support it, but of course poll on it, and include in his posts the facts about the likely consequences.

And then, of course, he'd tell you why the consequences wouldn't matter anyway.

But, that's just what you do. If you support something, you should be able to see the other side, and justify your decision to others.

Perhaps you should ask him WHY he supports it, despite the fallout (both physical and political), but perhaps this is not quite the right time to do so.

[Captain]

Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Ninot,

If you don't remember this discussion, I will find a link. A while back, you spoke of two things. One, that you did not like how party politics were shaping, and two that you would run for re-election of the FAM free of the "general DIA banner" and as yourself only.

I fully understand the desire and ambition to become president. I even aplaud and respect it. Indeed, your term as FAM has been impecible. You showed great initiative and willingness to listen to ideas such as the ambassadors. I am wondering, however, what made you decide to run under the DIA banner, and not as an individual as you once stated? Do you now favor party politics? Is it just a way to ensure your election?

EDIT: For your convenience:

my general stance is I don't like Parties, or Party Politics. I try and distance myself from the DIA vs. Coalition debates. The power they have might be inherent in that they are a group.. and as far as I am concerned, that is mighty powerful enough. I like the fact that I will run again for Foreign Minister under the name Ninot, and not under a general banner of DIA. And that is even tho I am a subscribed DIA member.

[Ninot]

Well, for a quick reply to UnOrthOdOx... you caught me.

I did say I would run again for FAM. but after i took my imposed week free of my PC, i came back to see once again Trip was running unimposed. And there was a request throughout the DIA for members to apply to more positions.

And yes, I'm caught there as well I guess. Im applying myself to this candidacy because my party needed representation.

And while i can be said to have pants of fire for changing my mind about running for FAM again (which, even though I am very confident in both candidates for that job, I would still love to hold that job), I found it more imperative that the role of President be put to some competition. Even if I put myself to shame and get minimal votes in an election here, atleast my challenges to Trip might put him harder to work in the second term. But to allow a second unnoposed election seemed worse than trying to beat out two formidable opponents in the FAM election. Not to say i left that race because I didnt think I would win, but just to say I thought services were better needed here.

Now you ask why I am running under the DIA banner, and not that of an independant. To answer you frankly, I don't know. And to be quite honest, I wouldn't mind at all if I ran as an Independant. But thus far in the race, the only party politics that have been OBVIOUS are party members showing somewhat obvious loyalties.

And yes, I would much prefer everyone ran and voted as independants rather than in parties. And even though I love independance, my ideas are not far from the DIA's (while I am much more liberal towards war).

To answer you the most frankly, I have NO clue why I am not an independant. But I do have a current loyalty, and if that loyalty shall change, so be it. But for now, I am a DIA candidate.. and take that with howmuch weight you wish, but answer me this.

As an Independant, am I any more likely to swing votes from a UFC candidate? or from a DIA candidate? Party politics might be a difference in a handful of votes... and even though I am for independance, because my views are closer to the DIA than they are to the UFC, i feel the prudent choice is to run as DIA so that I may better get my views across to everyone.

[Ninot]

Originally posted by Captain
Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

Captain, you always show a huge degree of intelligence in everything you say. This post was no exception.

I believe this post can best sum up any voters questions about who to vote for, if they werent looking for specific stances on certain issues.

And thank you for showing confidence in both my work, and that of Trip.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Ninot
Well, for a quick reply to UnOrthOdOx... you caught me.

Well, you may have noticed I am trying to become somehting of a reporter so, that is my job, right?
edit: (BTW, please answer my question in the "To all candidates thread", thanx) (you too Trip.)

And yes, I'm caught there as well I guess. Im applying myself to this candidacy because my party needed representation.

This is honestly what I expected, and feared. I have got to respect you for your honesty as well. While it is true that partisan politics have been largely left from this debat, and I applaud you both for that, I am somewhat dissappointed that this is your reason for running in the first place.

And yes, I would much prefer everyone ran and voted as independants rather than in parties. And even though I love independance, my ideas are not far from the DIA's (while I am much more liberal towards war).

Party politics are here to stay, for good or bad.

To answer you the most frankly, I have NO clue why I am not an independant. But I do have a current loyalty, and if that loyalty shall change, so be it. But for now, I am a DIA candidate..

As an Independant, am I any more likely to swing votes from a UFC candidate? or from a DIA candidate? Party politics might be a difference in a handful of votes... and even though I am for independance, because my views are closer to the DIA than they are to the UFC, i feel the prudent choice is to run as DIA so that I may better get my views across to everyone.

I, too, am in a similar position. My own views are closer to the UFC, but I do not always agree with everything they say. I likely should have stayed independant, but have committed and will not change easily now.

Honestly, many points have been made for both of you. I, personally would have liked to have seen you run Independant, if only to make a statement. I am honestly still deciding. My general view, though, is: if it aint broke, don't fix it. Nothing to do with parties, but I would need a compelling reason to change ANY of the ministers as the first term has gone VERY well IMO.

I CAN tell you, you would have likely had my vote as FAM, though.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Captain
Trip has a great record and would make an excellent President again.

Thank you, I like to think so.

The thing is, he's been the onlyPresident so far. So how can we make a fair comparison?

Good question.

All else being equal, maybe we should give Ninot a chance to prove himself.

Maybe so.

Then, for the third election, we'll actually have something to compare. Ninot's reign versus Trip's reign.

Well, you'd certainly be able to compare two people's performence.

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

Very true. You'd get brand new candidates.

But perhaps the Judges (if passed) will interpret the 2 consecutive term limit as applying only now, instead of retroactively, thus allowing Trip a third consecutive term assuming he wins this one.

Well, the problem with that is I won't be around anymore after August 18th, so I'm sorry to say I won't/can't be running for any more offices for some time after that.

Ninot did a great job at FAM, but without actually being President before, I can't make a good judgment as to who would be better.

Usually, this is the case for the real Presidential election... much of the time 1 candidate is up for reelection, and the other is someone brand new. How do we pick?

I see almost NO reason not to re-elect Trip and would be pleased if he won again, but it would be good to see what someone else (Ninot) can offer once in the position.

Indeed. I'd just like to win, personally.

The only reasons not to switch it up would be if the other candidate was incompetant (which Ninot is not, I think he is very capable) or if continuity required it (Case Pink/Blue or Plan Eagle might hiccup).

I think that this is a major factor. I know Plan Eagle inside and out, and 2/3 of the people support it as our course of action against America. I will be able to argue my position and try to defend the plan (I swung Public Opinion firmly against it to firmly for it through my arguments), when I can't say that Ninney will. Maybe that's not a priority for people though, we'll have to see.

[Will 5001]

To both candidates:
Do you support building up for a war aginst France immediately after the war with America? What do you prepose we do with the defeated Americans? (this may already have been asked, I havent read every post )

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Will 5001
To both candidates:
Do you support building up for a war aginst France immediately after the war with America? What do you prepose we do with the defeated Americans? (this may already have been asked, I havent read every post )

I don't really care either way. I feel that the Americans must be defeated/destroyed early so we can begin settling their land as quickly as possible. However, once we have beaten America we will be in a much better position to judge what to do next. I don't have an opinion either way on both issues.

[Robber Baron]

In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your SMC firmly opposed a warplan that you back, would you give him direction of the field, or insist on ramming through ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

[UnOrthOdOx]

THIS is a VERY nice question.

Nicely done, Baron. Would you like a job as a reporter?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
In what looks to be shaping up as a fascinating scenario, we might end up with a ministry in which the President disagrees with his Supreme Military Commander about the basic strategy to be followed in the war that looms ahead. So I ask the candidates, if your SMC firmly opposed a warplan that you back, would you give him direction of the field, or insist on ramming through ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

Both of us must listen to the will of the people. If the people support Eagle, and the SMC doesn't, then Eagle should take place. If the SMC supports Eagle, and the public doesn't then we shouldn't. Something like Eagle is more than just tactical moves (which the SMC is entitled to make), it's a major issue, and deserves the public's attention.

In other words, I will bend to the will of the people, not other ministers.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Following that up: Should the SMC choose to ignore the people, would you disregaurd his orders to proceed with whatever you deemed right?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Following that up: Should the SMC choose to ignore the people, would you disregaurd his orders to proceed with whatever you deemed right?

Yes I would. If the people want something, then it's my responsibility to be their voice. This is the case for the Presidency more than any other position.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Another follow up: Is there a % majority that will cause you to ignore the SMC, or is 50.1% enough? Clarify the EXACT circumstance that it would be acceptable to disobey ANY Minister, now that we really get into it.

edit: spelling disaster. (AOL, can you blame me?)