Archive:Maine-Carrick Major Executive Debate

On August 14, 2013, three days before the Major Executive election, the two opponents, incumbent Nathan Maine and challenger Mitchell Carrick hold this debate. Questions have been sent in to the moderator, Andrew Hester, two weeks in advance with the first eleven of the sixteen questions being known to the participants and the five remaining questions being revealed at the time of the debate.

## Debate Rules

Keep this debate clean and civil, I will ask all questions at once. The questions will alternate on who must answer them first. You are permitted to an answer and a second answer after you hear your opponent (each of you get two chances to talk during each question). The questions should look like this when finished:

### Example Question

What is your favorite color?
Maine: I would have to say blue, blue is a great symbol of freedom.
Carrick: Probably red, it symbolizes strength.
Maine: My opponent is wrong to say red, blue is a far superior color!
Carrick: My opponent is only diverting towards me to take focus off the fact that blue is not a good color.

## The Debate

### 1.) Judicial Appointments

**While recruitment has improved dramatically under Major Executive Maine, it's still on the lower side, and many government offices (especially Executive ones and Justices) are unoccupied. Considering that becoming a Justice takes very specialized knowledge that new members can't just pick up, and training and electing an Executive is very difficult, what is your plan to fill these?**

**Maine**: Filling judicial slots is difficult, you're absolutely right in that regard, and while we do have to adhere to the elitism idea that the most intellectual people should fill the highest seats, we also have to be realistic. We have to have to see that the seats are filled with the best *we have and we get*, we can't wait for months or years to go by before we find someone perfect. It's just not reasonable, and just as the Executive Branch has been filled with general candidates (with a few exceptions of course), we should do so too with the Supreme Court. I would happily back any single person in the Triumvirate right now with legal certification to sit on the Supreme Court (unless they are clearly serving better elsewhere).

**Carrick**: I have urged Ermier to run for judicial office as a justice if he does not get elected this trimester into the Administrative Branch. I have to disagree with what Maine is saying though, we shouldn't have to settle for what we have, it's not at all unrealistic or unreasonable to work to get the best of the best, and as Maine said, that shouldn't be a problem with "so many new members".

**Maine**: Are you saying that you'd rather wait for someone perfect than appoint someone who would be fine and effective now? Why not fill up the court with suitable people as soon as possible rather than wait and have the court be empty until what could be years before someone who might be better shows up?

**Carrick**: Yes I would, I don't believe in settling when it comes to electing and appointing our leadership.

### 2.) Committee Treatment

**How would each of you treat the committee process, something that has been somewhat neglected this trimester?**

**Carrick**: By differing what committees should deal with to them! The Economics Committee should be discussing economics, the Foreign Affairs Committee should be discussing foreign affairs, the Defense Committee should be discussing defense, and so on and so forth, and both the Executive and Administrative Branches should take careful consideration to what they all come up with! We have the committees for a reason, and they will work if this government invests in them instead of using political moves to ignore them.

**Maine**: Well you know me, I'm not one for committees, I find them slow and ineffective, and I'll admit that. I will step around them to get things done when they go too slow. They are very good for small scale things, controlling very small regulations and policies, and discussing very specific issues pertaining to their oversight, but not for pushing agendas at the moment. The committees are also too small and inactive to be truly effective at the moment. Long story short, we've seen success without committees, yes, in the long term they may be a positive addition, but I'm not waiting for that and I'm fine going around them for now.

**Carrick**: Maybe the committees don't work right now because this Major Executive doesn't believe in them or even acknowledge them. I hate to say it, but committees will work just fine if we let them do their thing and respect their own responsibilities instead of having politicians like yourself just stomp right past them and do their own thing without careful study provided by hardworking committees. The committees are full of the experts who will give the best insight into specific issues, politicians can't do that and what ends up happening is a bunch of weak and poorly crafted legislation that doesn't make sense to the experts!

**Maine**: I speak with people in committees still, and almost all of my legislation has had input from other experts in particular fields (Aaron Ehtya on my Banking Code or Andrew Mearl on the Monetary Code for example), but for an entire deliberative body to discuss an issue takes too much time for me. I know that's just my style and I like a fast paced agenda, but it works, and if you don't like it, don't vote for me. The Triumvirate thinks we're better off now than we were at the start of my term, so I'm sorry if you personally disagree with my style, but I'm sticking to it.

### 3.) New Businesses

**What would you do to help more new businesses get started?**

**Maine**: Under my first term I already helped streamline the process by reducing starting fees and even creating incentives to start businesses, both of which I feel will help greatly. In the grand scheme of things, as with most of our Union's problems, membership will help this more than anything else. More members equals more businesses, it's that simple. My economic stimulus act helped increase recruitment incentives 300% and we've seen a spike in membership, one that I hope will last. With my next term focusing on Union building such as forming relationships abroad and improving our morale and doctrines in general, it's safe to say that we'll see improvement on this front continue and that with new members, we'll see new businesses.

**Carrick**: I think it's unreasonable to assume that anything you've done has helped start businesses, as there was no significant jump in businesses due to anything you did. I agree membership is the central concern, and I am very happy that you slashed the starting fees. Creating incentives and pouring money into membership won't work though. Businesses do best when the government stays away from them, that's an economic fact. Taxing them, incentivizing them, and regulating them (yes Maine, even if you think it's "reasonable regulation") won't help.

**Maine**: Did you just say that incentivizing businesses won't help businesses succeed and get started? It will. That's how incentives work. I'm going to stick with my statement that it's members, I'll get new members, and combined with the steps I already took this last trimester, we'll get new businesses.

**Carrick**: The economy functions best when the government stays out of their way, that's the fact of capitalism. While incentives and membership may help in the very short term, in the long term it will kill the economy by endorsing a weak state of handouts that may harm the economy permanently.

### 4.) New Administrative Branch

**Describe how you'll work with the new session of the Administration coming this next term.**

**Carrick**: I have gained a lot of experience with the current session of the Administration and made good and close ties to Speaker Mearl, who I'm going to predict will be Speaker again if I may. I can go back and forth between the Administration and the Executive Branch very easily, and I've communicated messages both ways extensively. The way the Executive and Administrative Branch have worked together has dramatically improved since I became Administrative Liaison. Prior to that Major Executive Nathan Maine here was pure and simply refusing to talk to the Speaker and would go around him to get his laws through the Administration. That's irresponsible, we can't just ignore the elected leadership of the people's branch.

**Maine**: It really depends on the card that are dealt in the Administration, as this new session of the Administration will have quite a few members leaving and quite a few new members coming in. I am not refusing to talk to the Speaker, I will hear him out on anything, but I'm not going to rely on him either. I don't ignore the Speaker or the Administration, but I won't let political rivalry get in the way of solid progress.

**Carrick**: There's your answer, Nathan Maine will stop at nothing to get his way, even if it means ignoring the fact that the people of the Triumvirate voted for these members of the Administration.

**Maine**: I'll stop at nothing to do what is necessary and what I feel is important. As soon as I know who this next trimester's members of the Administration will be, I intend to send them each a letter congratulating them and saying that I hope to work with them in the trimester to come.

### 5.) Bankruptcy?

**Considering the budget set within it, that the government will probably not coin any more tri, and the risk of use of bonds and debt, how will the 2013-II Economic Stimulus and Infrastructure Investment Act not bankrupt the economy as Nathan Maine keeps claiming it won't?**

**Maine**: There's a biased question if I ever saw one. You can ask almost anyone in the Triumvirate who does not have a vested interest in seeing me absolutely destroyed, be it Ehtya, Curesse, Bleitze, Nremni, or Stenbach, none of them would say the stimulus will bankrupt us. Here are the facts: yes, there was an unprecedented amount of spending, I'm proud to say that. Yes, the trimester budget set in the stimulus increased 450 tri. Yes, it's a big expansion. The stimulus also created 1,000 new tri to help fund things, and we've seen no evidence of inflation there. It also came *after* two major bills both of which help in not causing an extraordinary amount of debt, the Monetary Code put together by myself and Speaker Mearl, and the Banking Code put together by myself and Aaron Ehtya. The Monetary Code allows the government to use bonds to fund things, and sets up the idea of a permanent government debt, which is something embraced in many governments and which both Andrew Mearl and Mitchell Carrick have said is a good thing. So if you're going to tell me they're against the stimulus because it will send this government into debt, then they are hypocrites who are using the word "debt" to scare you, while in reality it can be a very positive thing. I've invited them both to come and talk to me about other ways to raise money, be it an increase in business taxes from the weak 5% it is now (something I'll note that people from every other party have been willing to, at nothing else, talk about) or coinage of additional tri on a schedule of once every year.

**Carrick**: Essentially what you said is that it will bankrupt the government UNLESS you add more taxes or coin more tri on top of that... Which it will! I'll note that of Ehtya, Curesse, Bleitze, Nremni... three of whom were co-framers of your stimulus (who look good when they say the stimulus is good!), they all endorsed you. Stenbach also said it won't, but look where he plays in to this, he's also a co-framer of the bill! The people who are unbiased have serious concerns about the stimulus. You elect me and I will cut the spending on the stimulus in half, reducing the amount of ridiculous funds going everywhere in the economy. It's not sustainable and it needs to stop before this government does go very very far into debt. Yes, I'm one for using bonds to fund the government, and I do believe in government debt as a good thing, but not to the degree this stimulus is going. We have to be smart about it.

**Maine**: Perhaps so many people were co-framers of the stimulus because it was a good bill. Cutting the spending will hurt the economy, not help it. Can I also say that the government is perfectly able of withdrawing money from any government account at any time it wants to? If the government wants to move some money from the Department of Naturalization to say the Department of State or even the central government account, they are welcome to do so! There's nothing stopping that. This whole idea that the stimulus will send us into irreparable debt is a lie used by the Establishment Party largely in order to make me and those who supported the bill look bad.

**Carrick**: You focus too much on the short term. While the stimulus might do one or two good things in the short scheme, think about the long term effects of this stimulus: you endorse welfare, spend more money than we can afford to spend, put too much reliance on bonds to fund spending that shouldn't exist in the first place, create unsustainable programs for recruitment and art creation, all without any expiry! I wouldn't be so disgusted with the stimulus if it at least had an expiry, something saying that at 100 members that the membership incentives and artwork incentives would be terminated. Because right now... they are set to go on indefinitely unless we can pass a law to change that, one that I will happily vote for and you should too.

### 6.) Taxes

**How do you feel about a tax increase, or a graduated tax system (as Major Executive Nathan Maine said he would push for in his State of the Union)?**

**Carrick**: I will never vote for any tax increase or a graduated tax system (which I'll note I was even able to convince Andrew Hester, a once strong proponent for a graduated tax, to oppose it now). You want to help the economy, you want to get successful business? Then don't tax the businesses!

**Maine**: I strongly support a moderate increase in business taxes, up to around 10-15%, and some reforms to the Tax Code along with it to exclude certain kinds of income from being taxed at all. A graduated tax system is more fair than the flat tax system we have but I'm not sure that will be politically feasible this next trimester and I'm directing my attention away from economic matters and focusing on Union building. The government can use income gained from taxes to repay debt (helping out those who loaned us money in the first place... businesses and citizens) and to help businesses by providing better services to them.

**Carrick**: I can side with you on some kinds of income being excluded from being taxed, but everything else you said isn't reasonable at all. 10-15% is doubling (or tripling) the current rate, imagine businesses having to adapt to that, it wouldn't be pretty. They wouldn't be able to create as many jobs and they'd have to begin looking for more loopholes on income being excluded, which trust me, there are plenty of already. The graduated tax system is unfair by definition, it taxes people at different levels based on how much success they have. "We punish people more for being more successful!" isn't a great motto to go by, and that is what a graduated tax does. It also allows for massive price manipulation so that companies fall right under the tax bracket so that a company making enough tri would intentionally try to make slightly less to prevent against falling into a new bracket and getting taxed much higher.

**Maine**: With a 5% flat tax on income a business making 20 tri a trimester gives up 1 tri, leaving them with 19. While a business making 200 tri a trimester gives up only 10 tri, leaving them with 190. Then what if you raise that flat tax to 20%? A business making 20 tri a trimester has to give up 4 tri, leaving them with only 16. While a business making 200 only gives up 40, leaving them with 160! A flat tax is unfair to those who make a low amount of income. You're the one who keeps saying that businesses will adapt to anything and that the free market will find a way, well if you raise taxes, the businesses will adapt and they'll be fine. Then with the extra income the government can provide much better services to them such as increasing membership (which will help start new businesses and give them more customers), providing courts to settle disputes, improving the transaction system, and protecting their business interests.

### 7.) Cycling Executives

**How do you feel about the cycling Executives idea that Deputy Speaker Ryan Bleitze put together?**

**Maine**: I believe it's an idea that should be seriously considered, as it's a good way for average people to get involved in government and it would bring this government closer and make us more transparent in our dealings. The Executive Branch owes it to Ryan Bleitze to have a long discussion about it, and if Bleitze joins the Executive Branch like I hope he will, then we should have that discussion.

**Carrick**: I want to see conversation about it in the Executive Branch more extensively, but I don't think it's a good idea at this time. Doesn't mean we can't talk about it, archive that discussion, and maybe in a few years come back to it and look at it again.

**Maine**: I've got nothing more to say here, not big enough of an argument.

**Carrick**: Agreed.

### 8.) Executive-Administrative Branch Relations

**In the last trimester, relations between the Executive and Administrative Branches have been very rough, how would you work to solve this and work better with the Administration?**

**Carrick**: Relations between the Executive and Administrative Branches have gotten better in the last two months once I became Administrative Liaison. As Major Executive I will NOT be going around the Speaker, no matter who they are or what party they may come from, and I will host a weekly meeting with the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, and Administrative Liaison to help improve relations between the two branches.

**Maine**: I doubt you're the sole reason that relations have gotten better, as I attribute a lot of that to Jackson Mearl joining the Executive Branch as well. If relations have been so good under you though, why not stay as Administrative Liaison where you can do the most good instead of leaving it to some newcomer while you run around as Major Executive? I'm completely serious, if relations are better with you as Liaison, why should anyone elect you to be Major?

**Carrick**: Because I believe the two most powerful people in the Triumvirate, the Major Executive and the Administrative Liaison, should get along and speak to each other on at least a weekly basis. How long has it been since you talked to the Speaker solely again, Nathan? I'd be the acting Administrative Liaison too until someone suitable was elected. Perhaps one of the members of the Administration who is not seeking reelection would be up to the task, I wouldn't mind electing Nremni or Ryan Bleitze to the position of Administrative Liaison.

**Maine**: I have attempted to talk to the Speaker multiple times in the last month, to little or no answer on each attempt. I wouldn't mind electing Nremni or Bleitze to become Liaison either, but then you'd be out a job come this next trimester.

### 9.) Budget funding

**In the long term, how is the government going to fund the budgets set up by the stimulus act?**

**Maine**: Well I already answered this in part from a few questions back, but the use of government bonds as well as taxes on businesses will suffice to fund the budgets set up. I'd like to see an increase in business taxes and perhaps a yearly coinage of an additional 500-1,000 tri to keep the economy in growth over time, which would also contribute to funding the budget. The fact of the matter is that the stimulus can be perfectly supported by what we have now (bonds and small taxes), but could it be funded better with other things? Of course it can, and that's what we should try to do!

**Carrick**: Once again, what you said is that the budget you set up can't be funded in the long term with what you have. You are asking for a tax increase, which will hurt the economy and harm businesses, in order to fund your stimulus' budget. With a trimester budget of 590 tri... and current government holdings at 1,186... we can set a budget for 2013-III and 2014-I, but not any longer than that! Now let's throw bonds into the picture, yes bonds may help, we might be able to fund things for 2014-II, but consider that all the bonds that have been sold so far will be returned with interest (making the government lose significant amounts of money) in January, so we would need to sell more and more bonds at higher and higher rates and eventually we will collapse on that. Seriously, do the math on all of this, you'll be terrified, just like I am.

**Maine**: The government can withdraw funds from any government account whenever it wants to, I'll say it again, that money is accessible and can be allocated to pay off debt need be. The stimulus can be funded solely on what we have now, but I strongly recommend both a slight increase in taxes and scheduled coinages to aide that. The fact of the matter is that the stimulus is working, we are getting new members, the economy is showing diversification and improvement, what more do you want?

**Carrick**: It takes confirmation by the Executive and Administrative Branches to take funds back, which as you probably are very aware of, is not easy to make happen. That's why I'm not counting on the "but the government can withdraw funds from any government account whenever it wants to" argument. No, the real fact of the matter is that this stimulus has no termination, you're indefinitely funding the Department of Naturalization and Department of Media for programs that will cease to be effective and will start seriously hurting this government financially eventually. There's no termination, no end, no requirement that the law must be approved again in some amount of time, nothing, it's indefinite until someday both the Executive Branch and Administrative Branch pass another law to end it.

### 10.) New Administrative Powers

**Would you support an amendment allowing the Administrative Branch to write and pass bills of its own?**

**Carrick**: No. That's not the place of the Administration. Administrators can work with Executives and get the Executives to table and pass bills and then send them to be confirmed by the Administration, but they should never have the power to write and pass bills of their own.

**Maine**: I agree with Mitchell here, I don't believe the Administrative Branch should be able to write and pass bills of its own, I believe that power should remain with the Executive Branch while the Administration only has the power of confirmation.

**Carrick**: Finished this question early too.

**Maine**: Done here.

### 11.) JCC Nominations

**What steps would you take with the JCC in terms of nominations, the mid-trimester nomination of the Chairman, policy changes, security changes, etc.?**

**Maine**: I would re-nominate Jackson Mearl at this time, I can say that. Otherwise there's not much to say, as I can't think of any nominations to the Council I'd make at the moment, unless of course Andrew Hester were to cease serving as Minor Executive or Ehtya were to return to public sector life. While the JCC is vital to security, I tend not to put too much thought into it and allow it to run itself, which they prefer, and I prefer.

**Carrick**: I would also renominate Jackson Mearl, but I would be much more involved in the Joint Command Council than either of the two previous Major Executive's (though to Major Neil's credit, it was only just formed in her last weeks in office).

**Maine**: I'm smart enough to know when to step back, and I'm no expert on defense or intelligence, so I'm comfortable leaving the JCC to its own actions and silently observing for the most part.

**Carrick**: I see you're taking your job as commander-in-chief very seriously... stepping totally out of defense and intelligence discussions. No, as commander-in-chief I would be very involved in the process, taking a big interest in the affairs of both the Department of Intelligence and Department of State and setting my own priorities in those regards instead of letting them run around without some input by myself. Now that I think about it, every power the Major Executive has over a standard Executive... being commander-in-chief, managing sites (such as social media), having access to all confidential information, working with the Joint Command Council, talking to all kinds of leaders in the government, utilizing the Chief of Staff, requiring Executive opinions, mandating discussions to committees, and managing offices without a head... are the things you don't do. What you do right now could all be done by you as a normal Executive, couldn't it? Working on legislation, giving speeches, and working your politics. There's no good reason for you, someone who has just admitted you don't want much to do with "defense or intelligence", who can't communicate with those who disagree with him, and who has said they don't even want to work with committees to remain as Major Executive. Let someone who is willing to use the full powers of the office effectively step in. Being Major Executive isn't about having an agenda like you think it is, it's about being a leader, managing sites, and serving as the commander-in-chief.

### 12.) Recruitment

**What steps would you take in getting the Triumvirate's membership up?**

**Carrick**: Using social media, it's something that many have talked about doing, but it's not as extensively used as it could be for sure.

**Maine**: Recruitment incentives have already showed promise with their recent increase. Social media is fine, and can be expanded on for sure, but I believe that recruiting comes from the heart and from our center. Our current members are our best source of new members, not the outside world. So continuing on the track of incentives is how I'll go about it. This would go with my philosophy that everything wrong in this Union can be solved by something within this Union.

**Carrick**: There's no proof that recruitment incentives have lead to the recent increase, all evidence is circumstantial at best and we won't really be able to see how the increase in recruiting incentives has influenced membership until many months in the future. We should be looking at other online forums and at social media to get the most members. If people in the Triumvirate were going to get us new members, it would have happened already. Recruitment incentives aren't going to make them suddenly think "well now that there's Internet money involved, I'm going to go invite my friends!". Recruitment incentives might sound good in theory, but in reality, they're just a dream of politicians to appease the public's thirst for new members and make it look like the government is doing something about a serious membership crisis without the government actually doing any work at all and instead relying on the citizens to do the work.

**Maine**: As soon as the 2013-II Economic Stimulus and Infrastructure Investment Act was passed and the 300% increase in recruitment incentives went into effect, we saw a jump of four active members to an all time high. In fact both Lanclot Rice and Ryan Bleitze specifically told me that they only recruited because there was a much stronger financial incentive to do so. You're the one who keeps saying the government should stay out of things like this and let the citizens figure it out in a free and open system, well here it is: here's a system based on the people, based on competition, and based on no government interference except to encourage people to bring in members. What's not to like?

### 13.) Crime

**Nathan Maine, under your term as Major Executive and as acting Chief Attorney and Head of Law Enforcement, you have allowed dozens of crimes to go with prosecution or even challenge. Are you soft on crime, and if reelected how would you deal with this, and if Mitchell, you're elected, how would you deal with this?**

**Maine**: "Dozens?"... such as...? The only crimes I can think of that I didn't go after would be simple transaction errors, which I am willing to take a few seconds to fix myself and don't want to get the courts involved in at all as it's such a small thing. Those or that I asked the Executive Branch not to target those who hadn't joined the forums within the time set by the stimulus and said I wouldn't be challenging them for the time being as the forum has had some trouble getting up and running the way we wanted. If those two petty little crimes are what you call dozens of examples of me being "soft on crime", than I don't know what to tell you.

**Carrick**: I have to agree with Nathan on this.

**Maine**: Done here then.

**Carrick**: Yes.

### 14.) Backroom Politics

**How would you deal with all the backroom politics that has been happening behind near everyone's back?**

**Carrick**: They wouldn't have to be going on if some politicians (who shall remain nameless) would face their opponents face to face. What is it with the people around here that they won't have serious debates and discussions about the issues and refuse to face and directly challenge or discuss issues with those who they think are against them. If Major Executive Maine spent as much time actually talking to the second most powerful person in the Triumvirate, Speaker of the Administration Mearl, as he did gathering endorsements from large businessmen, statists, and far-leftists, then maybe there wouldn't be as much political squabbling.

**Maine**: I have contacted Andrew Mearl dozens of times, if he doesn't want to talk to me that's his problem, not mine. He's not reliable enough for him to be someone I speak to regularly about my own plans, because half of the time he ignores me, and the other time he shoots any idea of mine down entirely. Backroom politics is a reality in any government, sorry to break it to you, but important deals are made in "backrooms" and that's how the process has always worked and should continue to work.

**Carrick**: *"Backroom politics is a reality in any government, sorry to break it to you, but important deals are made in "backrooms" and that's how the process has always worked and should continue to work."* - With that statement, I'd be surprised if your own party doesn't throw you away. That's maybe the least forward-thinking and least progressive thing you've ever said. Coming from someone whose motto is "solid progress" and who promotes "transparency in government". Good to know.

**Maine**: You're not saying it because you want to make me look bad, but you agree with what I'm saying entirely. You're not denouncing backroom politics at all, on this topic you're just attacking me personally. You're smart enough to realize that backroom politics is reality in government, that it's classic Ogamon-style politics, and that it happens and will never stop happening. You've done it, I've done it, I can't think of many who haven't done it.

### 15.) Compromising

**How would you compromise with your opposition even if you despised most of what they're proposing?**

**Maine**: I am always willing to speak with anyone and everyone in the Triumvirate. There are some issues I will not compromise on and that's final, and I may completely despise an idea and do everything I can to stop it, but I will hear out thoughts on anything. I am a man whose mind is not easy to change, but that's what makes me the man I am.

**Carrick**: Those are big words for someone who admits to going around the Speaker every chance he could and refused to talk to the Speaker on multiple occasions. Not willing to compromise because you're too set in your own ways? I'm sure that's exactly what the people want in a leader... compromise is a good tool, and it's part of the reason I can get along with the Administration and Executive Branch.

**Maine**: Yes I'll go around the Speaker when I can't count on him to do any good and to plain and simply get my ideas destroyed. If not being willing to compromise on some things is a quality you don't value in a leader than I'd recommend you through both Arnold Ogamon and Elliot Neil out of your list of favorite Major Executives.

**Carrick**: It is the motto of the Department of State that "diplomacy never fails, the diplomat does", compromise is always possible, no matter how opposed two parties may be. For those of you who doubted me the dozens of time I've said it before, here you have Nathan Maine saying it publicly: "I'll go around the Speaker". Maybe if you weren't so unwilling to compromise and so stuck in your ways, you'd actually win this election.

### 16.) "Experts"

**How well would you work with the "Experts" in their perspective fields? Would you include them in your ideas? (Ascencia on Defense/Intelligence, Hester on Economics/Diplomacy/Leadering, Spencer on Graphics/Web designs, Mearl on Diplomacy).**

**Carrick**: They all have powerful places in committees, and I want to listen to them and get them more involved in the process. I want Ascencia to be more focused on intelligence rather than defense, because to be realistic we're on the Internet here, and defense is sort of a strange idea. Hester should remain a powerful economic force, running a top business and managing our successful Treasury (though I want to say that eventually I'd like to see complete restrictions on Executives being able to own businesses at all). Spencer should be more involved in the forum creation and management, and getting him to perhaps create more images for us. Jackson Mearl as the Chairman of the Joint Command Council and as the Chief Ambassador should be aiding Ascencia in intelligence and helping with what small relations we have.

**Maine**: I do sometimes, but my style is very blunt and forward, I don't like to be slowed down by others, but I'm usually very happy to work with them. Unlike my opponent I do believe that defense is important, perhaps events like the Countdown Crisis, Uhnul Conflict, or AoS Cold War ring a bell?

**Carrick**: I'm very skeptical that "defense" is important, even in those events. The intelligence on those, at least that which I've seen, is all very skewed. Even if "defense" were a thing and we could do it, "defense" did nothing to stop any of those events. We're on the Internet, we're not a real-world country with a real physical military or with walls or guns or borders. I'm not going to be told by someone who is a self-professed non-expert on anything having to do with being commander-in-chief that "defense" is important for us, because it's not.

**Maine**: You may want to check your historical facts on that, but that's understandable you'd get that wrong considering you've only been with the Triumvirate for two months. The Uhnul Conflict was directly resolved via defense, AoS Cold War was mostly an intelligence fight, and the Countdown Crisis could have been far far worse were it not for what defense systems that were set up at the time. There's a reason the Triumvirate has had no threat since the Countdown Crisis over a year ago, and that's because after the Countdown Crisis defense was so dramatically improved. The reason you doubt defense in the first place is because of the old saying, "out of sight, out of mind". You can't see what the JCC and Department of Intelligence are doing, you can't see what steps Major Executive's and the Head of Intelligence have made to protect the Triumvirate, so you don't realize the significance and importance of it. Cyber threats exist, the Countdown Crisis showed the Triumvirate that. E-mails can get broken into, sites can be taken down, whole wars can be fought on the Internet. The United States government does it too, cybersecurity is a huge market now and many nations are taking steps to protect things like online banking, government records, financial documentation, and communication online from being taken out or compromised and revealed. Read a newspaper one of these days, I guarantee you'll find some mention of the threat of cyber-warfare or or some piece of confidential information being leaked or of computational espionage. I'll make the defense decisions, I'll observe the Joint Command Council, I'll stay informed with what the Department of Intelligence is doing, but I recognize that they are experts while I am not as knowledgeable as they are. The Joint Command Council was created under the Major Executive Entitlements Policy to aide the Major Executive in defense and intelligence, and that's what I'm using it for. They advise me, I suggest things to them, and I learn about the threats facing the Triumvirate day to day. As commander-in-chief, I'm fortunate to have hardworking people like Jackson Mearl, Ascencia, Edward Stenbach, and Theodore Crown, four major members of the intelligence and security community to help me make decisions so that I am as much informed as I can possibly be.