Join the new world

If, for vhatever reason, you end up in Bolivia tomorrov, and you can't vote for any of the five people mentioned above (I endorse Bayer, Valshannar, and Littleton), please, vote for a Free and United Bolivia!

http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/estoy-hablando-a-la-corazon-de-bolivia-addressing-the-heart-of-bolivia-839265/1/2" target="_blank">http://www.erepublik.com/en/article/esto[..]5/1/2

Yes, for anyone who goes on a bender and end up in Bolivia somehow, ARJAY PHOENICIAN for BOLIVIAN CONGRESS!

Oh, Osmany. . . do you dislike Aren Perry that much? Stooge.

@Daniel Jacob Asher - There are two reasons that "the more unifying, ideologically aligned, and more viable" candidate did not receive our endorsement:

1) Aren Perry (to whom I assume you were referring) did not approach the SFP asking for our endorsement.

2) Even if he had asked for our endorsement, we likely would not have given it considering he is the brain child behind The Gentleman's Agreement and Jedi Council, both of which the Socialist Freedom Party oppose on the grounds that they are little more than attempts to quiet dissenting voices and shut out smaller parties.

@Daniel Jacob Asher - Stooge for whom? And where did your first comment go? Retracted?

Yes, totally retracted! I find your neo-Leninism refreshing. So new, the imagery so fresh, and free of overuse.

Clearly we hit a raw nerve with this one. First he's mad that we didn't endorse the AAP candidate even though that party is clearly all about unity. Then when it is explained to him in simple terms why his candidate did not receive our endorsement, he represents the AAP as being just the opposite.

I represent no one but myself, and certainly not "the AAP" as a whole, or as a party. There is no litmus test for membership. Don't confuse our unconventional approach and open dialogue for lack of "unity". We have peeps in our party who meet for beers and darts! That's "untiy"! I just made a notation of your odd ideological leap, given that your so staunchly "socialist", called you out on it, and accepted your bland, fidgeting excuse with a smug grin. Clearly this is why no one takes your party seriously in the least. You're certainly no socialist. But seeing as how you "have to endorse someone" to keep the illusion up as if you matter. . . . .

might as well be a right-wing, control-freak, war-hawk. Just seems odd, and I pointed that out. 🙂
In the AAP . . . . we have fun, for God's sake. Note that I support empty symbolism in ALL it's forms. Take care, and take yourself less seriously.
Cheers.

I don't know what to tell you, Asher. We were approached by only one candidate from the New Jersey race and it was Claire Littleton. According to her campaign platform, she is against the free-market tax scheme that was being pushed through Congress-- so is the SFP. She is against a Q5 hospital in every state-- so is the SFP. She is against a raise in the minimum wage-- so is the SFP (we've all seen the eUS forum argument). We also know that Claire was a long-time UIP member who took over the Libertarian Party recently to overhaul them from inactivity. The SFP looks a little deeper than party affiliation and its real-world implications when we endorse.

If our brand of socialism looks strange to you, it is because unlike you, we have based it on the material conditions of life in the game, not what we believe the real world should be like. Sure, we may borrow the symbols and language of the real world socialists but that's all part of the fun. The rest of the fun our party has in this game is from thinking critically and brainstorming outside-of-the-box alternatives to the in-game systems we are seemingly stuck with. We don't live close enough to one another to play darts and drink beer.

And you will find Aren Perry in line with that! I'm glad we're down to brass tacks now. That is actually refreshing. Aren will endorse low import tariffs on things we do not produce, manufacture, or rasie plentifully in the states. This will help our iron-producing allies(among others) and will give our workers and companies the raw materials they need to get the job done, at a good price, boosting our economy. Aren will support solid import tariffs in place for all those things we DO produce plentifully, getting the best price possible where demand is highest . . . . this protects the American worker, and American economy, like someone of true socialist values would endorse. Like it or not, we're in a "profit-based" system. I would like to see a more "resource-based system", personally. . . . . that would be an experiment worth trying, But I'm glad we had this talk. Good talk. Meet for darts and pints on Friday? Or are you a billiards man? 🙂

Oh, I forgot to thank you and your party for supporting the AAP in North Dakota and New Mexico. Cheers.

Thank you for the endorsement!

Osmany, props to you for your calm, well-reasoned responses to Daniel. I was disappointed to find that Daniel has used this article for some childish and objectionable name-calling in his shout box.

So goes politics. If I were him, I don't think I would want to draw attention to this debate.

Thank you for the endorsement 😃

I'm sorry, did someone besides me actually accurately represent the issues? I must've missed that. And stop taking yourselves so seriously. Granted it's cute, but only for so long. I'm getting lots of positive feedback, mostly from within your own party Osmany. Cheers. 🙂

And thank you sir, for the small amount of increased publicity you are giving our party.

Inconsistencies and the spreading of misinformation should always be made public, and the source, always held responsible. My pleasure.

I'm scanning over the comments again and have yet to see where you pointed out misinformation and hypocrisy. You have presented facts about your preferred candidate. I have not refuted those facts, but simply pointed out where we disagree with you preferred candidate, who, and I can't emphasize this enough, never approached our party for an endorsement in the first place. If a candidate asks us to look over their platform and consider an endorsement, we will do it.

Merely claiming you have exposed something is a far cry from actually doing it.

I'm trying to be inflammatory and have fun here, fer Chrissakes! But let me be serious for half-a-secon😛

You gave reasons why you support Claire and not Aren. You gave several policy based reasons why you would vote for Claire. I informed you that Aren was on board with all of that: Anti-free-trade, anti-minimum wage-increase, against the over-construction of Q5's. . . . As far as squashing dissent and "shutting out" smaller parties, the AAP IS a small party, silly. Aren wouldn't want or support any agreement that gives the USWP more power, monopoly and control on congress than it already has. He will, however, support agreements that put all politicians on the spot, making them accountable for what they say, and to whom they say it. This is not squashing dissent. This is the responsibility of free speech, and a free society. To say otherwise is preposterous, in fact. So, in conclusion, it appears to only difference is: "He never asked me to support him". So is all you're required to do is ask for support to get it from the SFP? That doesn't strike me as an ideologically sound base. And, that my friend, is hypocrisy. And implying that Aren is FOR the policies you and Littleton CLAIM she is against is misinformation, albeit probably unintentional on your part.
So. . . . there's your misinformation, and your hypocrisy. Any questions?

You assume we granted endorsements to every candidate who asked and this simply isn't true. If Aren Perry's platform is identical to Claire's in every way except the Jedi Council and Gentlemen's Agreement, then it is legitimate to back the latter over the former.
Despite what the Jedi Council and Gentlemen's agreement was intended to do, make politics in the US a polite discourse, they run the risk of becoming a tool of quieting dissent and marginalizing smaller parties.

First, the Jedi Council effectively legitimizes a party solely based on its rank in the country. Second, what's to stop a party to the gentlemen's agreement from being accused of breaking the agreement when they have legitimate arguments against the status quo? If your response is that the public will be able to decide, then that is my argument against the agreement to begin with.

The citizens are able to make a determination about whether the political articles they read are criticisms of policies vs criticisms of people. Party Presidents would do well to make sure their parties do not cross the line lest they risk the political consequences.

Many parties already have officers in charge of InterParty relations and the SFP is no exception. Many parties are already working together. So why host a Jedi Council within the White House?

If your argument is that formal agreements get in the way of popular, everyday democracy and personal choice, then maybe you should join the "Libertarian" ticket. It sounds like they are right up your alley. If on the other hand, you are for consensus-based decision making through a representative republic, with oversight and accountability, then Aren's your choice.

It's easy to be practically anarchistic in approach when you are a small party, fighting for a voice. I can appreciate that. But we must have some confidence in ourselves, and some foresight.

You write this: "The citizens are able to make a determination about whether the political articles they read are criticisms of policies vs criticisms of people. Party Presidents would do well to make sure their parties do not cross the line lest they risk the political consequences."

Did you notice any political repercussions for Claire's slander and loose tongue? Or an even more apt example: Did you see Scrabman suffer politically for his hateful and unthinking rhetoric? No. Not in either case. The Gentleman's agreement is not about stifling dissent. It is about holding politicians accountable for what they say, and to whom they say it. Now granted, I understand Scrab as being part of this agreement, and that is a good case to make in lobbying for it's ineffectiveness. I understand. But in consensus-based decision making, otherwise known as democracy, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water. We don't buy into that "tyranny of the majority" crap. We choose, every day, with blood shed in war, our dollars, our labor and our votes, ultimately, to hold our representatives accountable.
It was once said that "Democracy is not the act of voting. Democracy is the open and free discourse that precedes and follows every vote, and every decision. Voting itself is only a small portion." And the AAP, and Aren Perry understand that.

As to your point about candidates approaching us for endorsements being a criterion: I do not think this is hypocritical. You accused us earlier of thinking we are more important than we are in eUS politics, to which I respond that if we were, we would go state by state and endorse a candidate in each.

We only endorse candidates who ask because our endorsement could have a negative effect on campaigns, given the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eUS. I would not want the National Socialist Party endorsing me (when they existed) if I were running for office. So it may be the same if a centrist candidate received our endorsement. Remember Obama's endorsement by Reverend Wright in last years elections?

The process I used goes something like this:
1. Candidate asks for endorsement.
2. I read candidate's platform and compare to SFP platform.
3. Candidate's request denied or tentatively approved pending a request from another candidate in the same state.
4. Endorsements finalized the night before the election in an article.
5. Endorsement article attacked by capitalist pig-dog who hates freedom.

It's a good system and I have been having fun. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.

You're not on your toes, Osmany. You're off your rocker. But I'm glad you're having fun.

Please change number 5 to: "Endorsement article attacked by Democratic Socialist who hates to see his well-intentioned brethren co-opted and used by other party's fleeting, momentary interests."

The Jedi Council is a hot button issue with you, and the button got pushed, threatening all your other core values.

Remember what happened with abortion and gay marriage in recent years, and the impact that voters who only focused on those issues had on say. . . . the people in Iraq and Afghanistan? Or workers at Enron? Or accountability at Exxon? If you want to be a one issue party: go for it. And expect to be further marginalized. You expect Claire to listen? Hah.

We'd(the AAP) rather incorporate you into something cooperative. I hate to see you marginalized in this way, with you getting all dressed up, combing your hair all nice for the ceremony.

I must have missed Claire's slander, so in that case, I must claim ignorance. Link?

As for Scrabman, he did seem to suffer some in his latest election, since he was unable to get a majority of votes. Certainly the citizens of the eUS could be a little more informed of what is going on, but spoon-feeding them political articles that are Jedi Council approved is not going to have that effect.

Some people enjoy the personal attacks and appeal to emotion but we don't have the ability to make anyone "held accountable" for their actions besides voting them out, which as you point out, does not always happen when it should. We don't have an in-game star chamber. All the Jedi Council can do is to condemn rhetoric... something citizens are fully capable of doing on their own if they so choose.

um, the Jedi Council has nothing to do direclty with articles. are you confused on what the purpose of the Jedi council is? I do believe Claire has been spreading falsehoods baout its purpose.

if you take a closer, well, ok. ANY look at the gentlemans' agreement, it takes a good portion of its time to specifically state that the agreement is NOT to sqaush party differences but needless personal attacks.

Well in your defense, I did get a single, generic private message from your party asking to discuss how we could work together.

@Aren - What does the Jedi Council have to say about this Asher comment in this thread?

"[Claire is a]right-wing, control-freak, war-hawk"

And you still will. How can we work together, Osmany? Certainly we have to agree to deal in truth and not misinformation!!! I'm sorry I had to intellectually brow beat you, but I refuse to get bogged down in a game of semantics and lies that Claire has set the stage for. I will brow beat the lies out of the air, I will continue to do so and do so as long as it takes. The AAP is the place for you and your party's ideals, and will represent your party interests the best. I have made that clear, and the PMs I receive from several SFP members(not many, only three) tell me I'm onto something.

lol. Someone who says that they will kill anyone who gets in their way deserves that rhetoric. Cheers.

Lowering yourself to her level, eh? You are a Paragon on Propriety!

Look, we are fully capable of representing our own interests... its why we are SFP and not AAP. Our party in its current form is only 40 days old. We aren't a Top-5 party and so we rely on the top-5 parties to run our candidates but that does not make us beholden to Aren Perry, the AAP or any other party president we work with. Your paternalist attitude towards smaller parties is unbecoming of a social democrat.

Using someone's own words, and repeating what is really being said, to make a point isn't lowering one's self.

Nor is anyone making you "beholden" to anyone, or trying to. I will take a "fraternalist" attitude, rather than a "paternalist" one, when the subject in question(you, namely) is dealing with actual information, not hot-button issues or blatant hypocrisy and misinformation. That's unbecoming of anyone. Anyone at all.
Cheers.

Sorry, master. I'm just having a hard time seeing where the hypocrisy and misinformation is in my arguments. Since you are clearly more clever than me (as evidenced by the self-congratulatory remarks that make up the bulk of each of your comments), would you kindly point them out again? It is clear now that you, and only you, have the monopoly on pure facts in this game and if only I could glimpse of the inner-workings of your big, beautiful mind, I'm sure I could convince you that I was more than sub-human.

On a side note, I just found this gem in the AAP Party Platform:

"We support aggressive war in the game because no one dies and if pursued wisely can be beneficial."

Really? But I thought the AAP had a principled stance against Claire "War Monger" Littleton. For shame, AAP, for shame.

Now you're playing a "victim" card. Nice. It's what usually happens when one's points can't be sufficiently refuted. It's not about YOUR arguments. You're spouting Claire's arguments, which she framed in a way to tantalize you into voting conservative. She did a great job. You're clearly no dummy. But don't be a victim.

Ouch! FOUL!!!!!!! You can't be self-deprecatory and say you were insulted. Doesn't work that way, save for rap stars, opera prima donnas and professional athletes.


If you're having trouble, it's all on the thread. Just re-read, and re-read, and re-read until you get it. Misinformation has been exposed and hypocrisy has been outlined for you twice in this thread. And with that, I retire from this "conversation".

Again, as much as you want to make this an argument about personality, you can't. This is about facts and ideas that are very much accessible, very much public and certainly not monopolized by anyone.

It's not about you, or me, or Aren, or Claire. It's about intellectual integrity, quality of leadership, and foresight.

For the record, I think you are anything but sub-human, but as Hoover writes: "Sarcasm is not the rapier of wit its wielders seem to believe it to be, but merely a club: it may, by dint of brute force, occasionally raise bruises, but it never cuts or pierces."

Have fun thumping away.

@your last comment: LOL. Now who's taking RL, meta-game ideals and applying them irrelevantly to in-game strategies? You think if we are peace-loving and egalitarian enough that PEACE will leave us alone? It's a game, and a game that the AAP leadership can have a large part in helping to win. But not without the encouragement and solidarity of other parties. Unfortunately, those party's misconceptions and erroneous ideas need to be cut down, and not in a ritual, reverent fashion.
I wasn't asserting that the AAP is "anti-war". You know that. But I do know that your party platform states you are, except in defense of the nation or of an ally. And yet you support Littleton. Just one example of ideological hypocrisy.

But I have you feverishly skimming our party platform looking for things to use against me in this ego-inflated debate.

Again, buddy. . . . not about us.

But at least you're reading the AAP platform. God knows if your SFP platform is as disconjointed and sporadic as your conversation, I don't know if I could handle it.

Keep reading. See if there's anything you like.

Cheers.

I see your point on us spouting Claire's views on everything since it is impossible for two people to arrive at the same conclusion.

Enjoy the rest of this fine election day and don't forget to seek our endorsement when you decide to run for office!

I was just pointing out that your party is aggressively pro-war and yet you have criticized Claire for supposedly being the same.

It's true, the Socialist Freedom Party is not for imperialist wars to "benefit the economy" like the AAP is, but we are unlikely to find a candidate with whom we agree 100% with outside of our own rank and file and even then, there is no guarantee since our candidates can run on their own platforms.

And that is what it all comes down to in the end.

As to the AAP platform... its short, simple, to the point and almost completely useless as a guide for determining your party's stance. All that I discovered is that you are pro-military (who isn't?), pro-government transparency (who isn't?), pro-citizen training programs (who isn't?) and pro-using taxes to regulate the economy(care to elaborate?)

It is refreshing, however, to finally see a party that "stands for the ideal that the eUSA is a community of interdependent citizens who require a representative government to perform those activities that individuals or even single groups of individuals cannot successfully do for themselves." Is John Locke himself in your party?

Osmany. Thank you. I appreciate you and what the SFP stands for.

The truth as I see it is this: All parties can take this industrial dynamo, the eUS, turn us into a war machine, and dominate the game. But there is a middle road, how one can take new members, coach them, tutor them, and make them involved, interested, and enthusiastic. Foster an economy where we can all afford houses by level 12 or so, have free, unimpeded voices to say "Hey, there's a better way", or merely "Hey, this sucks!"

This is why I'm even coming to you: From my sources, the SFP is among the best at retaining members, and you can, as well as your cadre of officers can take much credit and solace in that. I'm coming to you because SFP members STAY in the SFP. The same with the AAP. That's one thing I absolutely love about your party. You're GROWING. And so is the AAP. So I implore you, excuse my tactics, please.

The USWP, the Feds, the Libs. . . . they just have a revolving door of membership among the same people.

We are set apart. We see a future of brilliance, and in a world without ATLANTIS as it once stood, we need to be creative, and proactive, especially in interesting and maintaining new membership.

Look, I know I'm a friggin' prick. That's why I'm not running for office. No one will like me, and that's all it is at this point: a popularity game of inflated egos and a chatroom style of cronyism.

Let's be friends.

I'll say it out loud. I don't have the authority or the clearance needed to officially say "the AAP NEEDS you guys". But we do.

But I can say clearly that I need you guys. That's why I took the time to beat this thread into the ground, as I assume you did, too. You clearly care. So do I. If I ever run for office, I won't just ask your party's endorsement, I will do what it takes to make sure I have earned it, and will continue to be worthy of it.

Hey, granted, it is vague(platform). As things get clearer and we understand more and more what works and how it works the best, it will undoubtedly get more definitive. But in this nebulousness, there is open dialogue, and a fostering of a real marketplace of ideas where all informed ideas are welcomed. So, please, try not to find too much fault because our platform is a bit ambiguous, or even obscure. It's not obfuscation or disingenuousness. It's because we're open to new ideas, and sincerely trying to find out what works the best in eRepublik.

Fair enough. As I said before it has been fun because I haven't had a good debate with anyone in a while, especially as concerns politics. When is the next presidential election?

The SFP is about experimenting with new things in eRepublik with the goal of making the eUS and eventually the world, perhaps, less stratified between new and old players, between roleplayers and WINists and to see that the capitalist exploitation built into this game can be circumvented. To those ends, we are not in the business of alienating ourselves from the rest of society in the name of real-world ideology.

In so far as the SFP exists as a political party, we are seeking political offices, which by definition files our revolutionary edge down to nothing. It is apparent in our seemingly-backwards endorsement of a Libertarian. But we have yet forged strong ties with any other parties, so we keep our options open.

When the admins add a revolution module, you will see a different side of me. And I am serious about that endorsement. Whenever you are done being a prick. 😉

Same here, Asher. Take care!