Jump to content

Welcome, Guest!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to the game. If you haven't already created a character, what are you waiting for?

SWMissourian

Administrators
  • Content Count

    543
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

SWMissourian last won the day on September 12

SWMissourian had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

About SWMissourian

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I agree here. Part of my economic program will be offering economic incentives to young men and women to attend our trade schools and take jobs in manufacturing. There are cities in our nation that have tens of thousands of unfulfilled jobs in plastics, manufacturing, and other things like that. Frankly, that’s ridiculous. We’ve brought down tuition drastically for our big universities, so I think offering more incentives (especially for disadvantaged men and women) for just as necessary trade schools is a good start. Additionally, my government would start a campaign to raise the public opinion of these jobs. That’s really a big part of why people won’t take these jobs. They look down on them. But people who do these jobs are valuable; they’re human beings fulfilling an essential, well-paying, worthwhile part of our economy. Other countries don’t have this problem because their people recognize this reality. Let’s bring that truth to France, I say. We are going to make it way more viable to attend these trade schools and upgrade your skill set, and get a well-paying job. That’s our plan.
  2. I ardently disagree with my opponent here. The French people are a welcoming, kind, Christian people. The refugees coming to our nation have no home, as the civil wars and terrorism have destroyed them all. I agree that we can do a better job assimilating them into our culture, but restricting so many people would leave thousands with no place to go and would stain our nation’s reputation and prestige for generations to come. Instead, we should increase resources to our security apparatuses, like police and the military. We should streamline the deportation process, make it faster and easier for our immigration authorities. We should improve housing for refugees. That way, we can keep track of them, keep the peace, stop places like the Calais Jungle from forming, and better assimilate them into our beautiful nation. New immigrants offer economic and cultural opportunity. As a moral, pragmatic nation, it would be unwise and abhorrent to turn away scared, helpless masses because of where they were born. God calls on us to love everyone and be charitable. I think we can do that without trading away all of our security.
  3. 1) Yes. 2) Yes. We will open up the thread once the last ones are graded, and then players will have until Tuesday at 11:59 pm eastern to submit schedules for this week and last. Just the primary characters. Senate candidates won’t be fundraising and all that this early. Midsession schedules are for those already in office, to campaign a little on the side while they do their thing.
  4. Well, the French people have already come very far in this regard. Some countries refuse to take leadership on such an important—indeed, existential—issue. The French people know the very real gravity of the situation. It’s a national threat, no doubt about it. We’ve done much as a country to combat it, but we need to go further. There’s more that can be done. The previous government negotiated the Paris Climate Accords. These are great guidelines, but they aren’t binding. We need to make sure that we actually try to achieve those goals. That’s why I support the expansion of our solar capabilities. Solar power has only gotten better and more efficient, and with the right infrastructure—batteries, plants, electrical grids—we can really make a big leap towards reducing the harmful carbon emissions we have. That’s why I support improving our nuclear capabilities, upgrading our plants, building new ones, closing old, inefficient ones. The previous government enacted a law that sets a guideline for France to reduce our reliance on nuclear from 75% to 50%. I want to modify that to 60%. That way, we increase our share of solar and other renewables while avoiding handicapping ourselves so that we can’t deal with problems faced by other nations, like Germany. The Germans have begun a huge shift to solar and wind, but they’re having a ton of issues with it. I believe they’re even buying French power! Shows how desperate they are when German engineering can’t get them enough power. *laughs* So, how do we pay for these renewable expansions? Well, the government has had a carbon tax, today sitting at about 35 cents. I’m proposing a modest increase to about 40 cents, maybe a bit more. This will keep the impact on the French consumer minimal, but it will increase market incentive towards renewable, cleaner energy. Additionally, the investment we make in solar and nuclear upgrades will create jobs of all kinds: blue-collar, grey-collar, white-collar, educated, construction, managerial, engineering, all kinds. I also want to introduce tax credits for companies and individuals who want to move from a carbon-intensive vehicle, especially ones that burn diesel, to more green ones, like hybrids. So, my plan? “Greener cars, greener energy, cleaner air, and cleaner leadership.” Look, I support the cause of self-government for all peoples of the world. If the people of Wallonia want to join France, it should be up to them to do so. I have no objection to Belgium holding a referendum like that. That being said, I don’t support infringing on Belgium’s sovereignty, especially on a poll that is quite outdated. It’d be nice if Belgium would hold a referendum for the Wallonians, but I think France has bigger fish to fry, when we think about our security and anemic employment. It’s not something that really deserves to be the central component of a French, rather than Belgian, political campaign.
  5. This has been a problem France has been dealing with for, what, 20 years? Longer? We’ve had mass unemployment for longer than some people can even remember, longer than they were alive. That’s just ridiculous. That’s not something we should see in a modern Western nation. Unfortunately, this isn’t a problem that will go away overnight, it just isn’t. But we can put France on the right track. First, I want to cut corporate taxes. Corporations can’t expand and invest in French jobs if the French government is taking all of their money. If we let companies keep more of their money, they can use it to expand and increase their employee count. That means more jobs and more money for the French people. Second, we are going to modestly cut wealth taxes, for the same reasons as cutting corporate taxes. This will give the economy a boost and help us recover from the sluggish slump we’ve been stuck in for years. Another thing we’ve dealt with is the concern that French jobs are being taken by ungrateful, dangerous immigrants. First off, let me say that not all immigrants are like that. That’s a common misconception. Most of the people France let’s in are just scared refugees who need an escape from their war-torn homes. But we have seen that some are like that. So what we are going to do is make sure that the dangerous, violent refugees are deported faster and held longer if necessary, that way they aren’t taking French jobs and killing French people and hurting our economy. For the good refugees, we will break up places like the Jungle, because they can’t be allowed to stay, and we will build better, safer housing and institute programs to integrate them in to French society, which will provide a long-term boost to our consumer and producer population. Finally, I want to say that I will continue to support the building and innovation we are seeing in our nuclear power sector. Nuclear power provides so much energy with so little emissions. It’s very, very clean, so we don’t have to worry about destroying our planet. We’ll invest more in the program, bringing construction, maintenance, engineering, managerial, and more jobs to the French people. Well, if you want to talk about improving the economy, we can’t go and do that. Leaving the EU would be disastrous for our already weak economy, it’s the last thing we need. That would throw even more uncertainty and hardship into our economy, so, no, I don’t really support it. Just take a look at what such a thing would mean. It would mean that it’s harder for, say, British businesses to invest in France. That means less jobs, less expansion, less innovation, and more unemployment and debt. It would affect French businesses as well. There would be less capital flowing, and everything would be more difficult for business, and even the French people. Think about how ridiculously hard finding a job can be now...then go and withdraw from the EU? Ten times worse. The French people don’t want that. They don’t want to regress decades. They don’t want to undermine our economy even more than it already is, just because some reactionaries are mad on Twitter. If even Britain rejected a referendum for leaving the EU, then I don’t see France approving it. Britain has a history of that kind of movement, but the French people are wiser. Security is another big issue for France. Really, it goes hand in hand with the economy. You can’t have a thriving economy if you aren’t secure. The people of our great country have been threatened time and time again, with France paying the biggest price for the flawed immigration practices that much of Europe has enacted. For too long, this problem has been unsatisfactorily addresses by the people in power. But we have a plan. First, we need to provide more resources to our law enforcement. If we want to keep our communities safe, our men and women who serve valiantly in police forces across all of our communes need reinforcements. They need more funding, they need better facilities, better equipment, and they need more comrades. They need brothers-in-arms, sisters-in-arms, more people who will join forces to keep the peace. I want to help with that. We will provide grants and increased funding to communes to improve their law enforcement, specifically in areas that deal with the most violence. Next, we need to stabilize the situation in the places all of these people are coming from. Places like Syria. Horrible situation. They’ve got a bad President who gasses his people and can’t even keep order in the place. ISIL is just having a field day there. How do we fix this? How do we stop them from sending terrorists disguised as innocent refugees to our great country? Simple: we take the fight to them. We rebuild our military, creating jobs and opportunity along the way. We talk to our NATO allies: Britain and the United States, and we get a good commitment with them to finally address the issue. More than just airstrikes. We confront Russia, because they’ve been encouraging the chaos that caused this in the first place. We establish a more stable situation there so that they don’t have to come here. We need to make it clear that France is not a weak, complacent nation. We are the nation of Napoleon and Charlemagne, the nation that not only ruled Europe, but created it. We are the inheritors of that proud tradition, and we will fight like it! The civil war in Turkey is a tragic consequence of the bad actions of the Erdogan regime. I agree with the NATO approach of calling for immediate free, fair, supervised elections. I applaud the establishment of the no-fly zone; and I absolutely condemn Russia for fueling the flames. I think we should leave more on the table to establish order and peace, and keep the Russians from controlling a NATO nation. ((More in a bit!))
  6. Thank you to all of my GOP colleagues for the opportunity to Chair the RNC. It was the honor of a lifetime to be part of such a big movement. I’ll treasure it for the rest of my life.
  7. Thank you to my good friend, @GPinnacle. I look forward to our great progress in promoting prosperity and freedom in the US Senate this session.
  8. Mr. President, An organization that believes same-sex relationships are immoral should be able to say so, especially if it is done peacefully and respectfully. A religious group meeting on school campus should be able to, say, cite verses from holy texts like the Bible that state the immorality of homosexuality or the abandonment of God for the worship of false gods. Now, I understand the section in question says the speech must be "abusive or threatening". My worry is that overzealous, prejudiced college campus administrators will take advantage of this and abuse this section. My amendment provides extra protection from that happening while allowing the exception to remain in place. I yield.
  9. Mr. President, Since the amendment has been accepted as friendly, I move to amend as follows: Many religions, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, prohibit their adherents from homosexual acts. While there are certainly some who take this stance too far (a certain church in Kansas comes to mind), there are also many organizations who politely act on this belief, such as prohibiting said behavior among their members, but not castigating and ostracizing those who believe otherwise. I don't think any of us in this body wish to prevent these people from doing as they believe in this case. After all, that would kind of go against the whole point of the bill. Thus, this amendment would allow universities to ban vitriolic, hateful groups while still protecting the mainstream, peaceful members of the student body. I yield.
  10. Washington Erupts Over AG Confirmation and Immigration WASHINGTON, D.C. - Senate leaders and the White House clashed yesterday over the rejection of nominee John Alexander (D-MN), President Tillman's Attorney-General nominee, and over an immigration law vetoed by Tillman, despite bipartisan support in the Senate. Yesterday, the US Senate rejected Christina Tillman's nominee for Attorney-General, John Alexander. Mr. Alexander is a Minnesota Democrat who has served as the state's AG. While other nominees went through the Senate with bipartisan support, Alexander encountered problems in his hearing before the Senate. Republican Senators took issue with his assertion that there was no individual right to the Second Amendment before the Supreme Court's decision in DC v. Heller in 2008 as well as his stances on immigration and separation of powers. Senate Majority Leader Grant Pinnacle (R-AR) said,"The issue here is that, while he has testified that he believes in the right to bear arms, he also seems to believe that the Court just magically created the 2nd Amendment eight years ago in Heller v D.C. That doesn’t align with my understanding of the Constitution: Americans’ rights don’t just come and go, and the Second Amendment is legitimate and timeless law." Senate Majority Whip Adam Bishop (R-IA) emphasized other issues, saying,"The most disqualifying statements Mr. Alexander made were in regard to separation of powers. Mr. Alexander made very clear he believes President Tillman can take it upon herself to decide whether a law is constitutional, and if she decides it isn't, Mr. Alexander is comfortable with declining to defend that law in federal court. I expressed to Mr. Alexander that it's the executive branch's role to enforce and defend the law, while the courts interpret the law and determine constitutionality. Unfortunately, he was unmoved. Later in the confirmation hearing, Mr. Alexander doubled down on his troubling disregard for separation of powers, arguing that the Attorney General has the prerogative to decline to fully enforce federal immigration law if he deems it impractical or inhumane. On top of that, Mr. Alexander made clear he believes state and local governments are essentially empowered to make their own immigration policy...The Attorney General should be independently minded and prepared to enforce the law under all circumstances, but it's clear Mr. Alexander doesn't have the level of respect and dedication to federalism, separation of powers, and the rule of law we should expect to see in an Attorney General. " He went on to describe an 'aye' vote for Alexander as "dereliction of duty" to his constituents. President Christina Tillman (D-CA), was, naturally, very unhappy with the rejection of her AG. She Tweeted,"Very unfortunate that the Majority under Leader Pinnacle continue their partisan ways. John Alexander is an extremely qualified nominee. He is the only nominee to ever be rejected by the senate without cause. This is a sad new precedent set by the Senate Majority Leader." She went on to stress the qualification of John Alexander:"John Alexander is only the 4th nominee to be rejected by the Senate in the last 100 years. 1st since John Towers was rejected for drunkenness and womanizing. John Alexander is not a drunkard or a womanizer he simply has a different interpretation of law than the Majority. This is a very extreme move by some members of the Majority. Despite their constant division we will continue to bring our country #together." She seemed confident that the decision by the GOP to reject an Attorney-General nominee they regarded as too weak on gun rights and immigration as well as violating the principles of separation of powers would come back to bite them in the 2018 midterms. President Tillman then vetoed Kate's Law, an immigration security bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support last session and this session. Tillman said that immigration reform would come later, but this seems more as revenge against the Republican Party for rejecting her nominee.
×
×
  • Create New...