Join the new world

Presidential elections are in a few days and I've been weighing out my decision on who to vote for. Scrabman is the current President and he's not doing a horrible job. I'm a RightCon member and they have endorsed Kyle321n, but I don't really know all that much about him, either. Since I've never talked to either one of these gentlemen directly, I will go ahead and give you my completely uninformed opinion about them, based solely on casual observation.

For newer members, I hope this influences your vote greatly. For more experienced members, shut up.

First, incumbent President, Scrabman:

He seems like a nice enough guy. I get the impression that he works hard to not step on any toes. This, of course, has it's advantages and disadvantages. A big advantage would be that it is hard for anyone to complain about him. Everyone likes him and he's everyone's friend. I'm sure he's an absolute delight to work with since he probably tells you whatever you want to hear. I'm not saying he's disingenuous or completely full of shit, but UNITY is really important to him...possibly more important than ideals.

The disadvantage, obviously, is that nothing major ever happens. There has been no ground-breaking legislation that I'm aware of. He takes credit for war games, but he was elected more or less the day after I joined and there were already war games going on, so I don't know how accurate it is to credit him entirely. Congress may be very happy and feel very unified, but I don't really see them doing much with this unity. America was in a good position when he took office and he's been maintaining that good position. That's fine, but it's hardly progressive or even noteworthy. It really seems like the only unique thing he has done is create a bunch of new beauracratic offices where he could appoint people to do very specific and very unnecessary things.

There are people who would like to see Scrabman elected King of America, a position he would surely hold until death. That's a bit freaky, and curious considering the guy doesn't really seem to stand for anything. I don't understand how people can be so passionate about basic maintenance. I want to apologize to Scrabman if I am making it seem like he hasn't been doing anything. I just can't think of anything he's really done... so... sorry. I'm sure his dedicated followers will give me an earful about this.

And now for the challenger, Kyle321n:

He's had an impressive military career since he joined, which appeals to me because of my real life perceptions of those who choose to serve their country in that capacity. What I like best about soldiers is that they have strong ideals, but are rarely partisan. That has been my perception of Kyle, thus far.

He wants what is best for America and has an idea of what that means, and it has little to do with the clique drudgery of epolitics. That's not to say he is uninterested in politics, he's been a congressman for a while and worked in Scrabman's administration. He just doesn't get wrapped up in the sometimes childish bullshit that goes on. Like Scrabman, he's a fan of unity. He knows we can accomplish more when we all work together, so I think that's a priority of his. The main difference, however, is that he wants to do something with it. What does he want to do? I don't really know, to be honest with you. So why do I seem to be favoring him?

Good question, self. I think it is because Kyle is unafraid to turn to other people who know more about things than he does. While his military knowledge is great, he is maybe not the best economic leader you could ask for. Because of this, he's chosen Jewitt as his running mate. Jewitt IS one of the best economic leaders you could ask for. I personally think it is important for leaders to admit when they don't know something and then find people who know more than most to help him.

There might be other people running, but these are the only 2 I know about. If someone wants me to know they are running for President, then that is kind of on them, yeah?

I know these observations are...mostly irrelevant. There are more important differences that appeal to my personal politics. Like Scrabman seems to have a raging heart on for Romania and ATLANTIS, which I believe has made us weaker as a nation and forced us to turn a blind eye to undesirable activities perpetrated by 'allied nations.' Kyle thinks we need to make eUSA much stronger and able to defend itself, even against a juggernaut like Romania, should it ever come to that. I am a fan of this position. I don't like feeling as though the only reason America is doing alright is because we're jerking off Romania and serving as their bitch boy. I don't trust a nation that has expanded SO FAR beyond their original borders. If we couldn't beat Romania, we shouldn't consider ourselves STRONG. Just my opinion.