by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Governor: The Conservative of The Gipper

WA Delegate: None.

Founder: The Conservative of The Gipper

Last WA Update:

Maps Board Activity History Admin Rank

Largest Trout Fishing Sector: 2,432nd
World Factbook Entry

[b]This region is held as a backup region for The Free States and to prevent impersonation.

All interested parties should move to The Free States.


No results.

Embassies: The Free States.

Tags: Anti-Communist, Anti-Fascist, Anti-General Assembly, Capitalist, Conservative, Generalite, Libertarian, Minuscule, National Sovereigntist, Offsite Forums, Password, and Security Council.

Free States is home to a single nation.

Today's World Census Report

The Most Stationary in Free States

Long-term World Census surveillance revealed which nations have been resident in their current region for the longest time.

As a region, Free States is ranked 3,140th in the world for Most Stationary.

NationWA CategoryMotto
1.The Republic of FS FounderInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Liberty for all!”

Regional Happenings

More...

Free States Regional Message Board

On January 25, 2016 this region was founded by The Gipper. I'm excited to be starting this region which will stand up for capitalism, personal liberty, and individualism. I also am a big believer in National Sovereignty from the World Assembly. I'll keep everyone posted on my progress.

I'm still around, and have thought many times about retaking this effort.

I wanted to document my 2016 predictions.

2016 - The High Cost of Victory

The 2016 election cycle has stunned the political world. Most pundits and political minds did not see the rise of Trump coming. I certainly didn't, I was among the many Republicans believing in the ceiling to Trump's support that would halt his progress once the field narrowed. As unpredictable as this cycle has come to be, the one thing that seems certain is the long term implications for the parties after it ends. If you passionately believe in the political goals of either party, there could be nothing worse than winning the 2016 Presidential race.

The American people do not trust or like either nominee. This is not a year when people will turn out to vote for a candidate, but instead against the other. Fighting tooth and nail to be the party that will have to champion the second least popular person in America for the next four years is an incredibly short-sighted plan, but it is the only plan available to both parties to win in 2016. On January 20th, 2017 the candidate that wins the second-most-awful contest will become the face of the party and the underlying political ideology, and the vast majority of politicians in that party will be forced to praise and defend the President. And that President will be taking office eight years after the last recession - meaning historically speaking - another recession is unavoidable before the end of the term (and very likely before the mid-term). In 2017, a President will assume office with historically high negative numbers, and then that President is very likely to oversee a recession. That's not a position a party should want to be in.

Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential election, the next President is not likely to have a friendly congress. The Republicans will hold the House until the next census in 2020. The Democrats will almost certainly regain the Senate by 1-3 votes. This year is six years after the 2010 Obamacare wave when Republicans won in states they would have lost in a normal year - like 2016. A Senate correction is natural in 2016. Neither party is going to achieve any federal platform goals before 2018, or possibly before 2020.

So why are both campaigns fighting so hard to put their brand in an absolutely horrible position to move forward, if it isn't likely to gain them much in terms of legislation? Both campaigns, and probably most pundits, will almost too quickly spout the words "Supreme Court". What I'm about to say is going to fly in the face of everything you've heard in the last year, but while it is important, the Supreme Court is far from an earth shattering issue in 2016. The next President is going to replace Scalia, and likely RGB. The next President has a less-than 50% chance to replace Kennedy, in my opinion. The rest of the Justices are young enough it is very unlikely. So two, maybe three nominees. That's huge right? Not really. Every person elected President since World War II has appointed at least two Justices except Jimmy Carter. The next President is likely to have an exactly average impact on the Supreme Court. And even that, doesn't mean a whole lot. Supreme Court picks don't always turn out to be the Justice the President predicted, there's no way to really know what someone will be like on the bench until they are there. And the Justices tend to agree much more than they disagree. Scalia and Ginsburg voted together much more than they voted against one another, as the Court is actually very conservative with its power. It has been years since the Justices pulled a ruling from far out of left field, and it isn't likely that is going to change this Presidential term.

I simply don't buy the wide media hype that 2016 is the most significant or important election of my lifetime. In fact, it seems certain to amount to almost nothing. The significant fight that both parties need to be having right now, is the census fight. If the Democrats want to become relevant again they have to win control of the states and use gerrymandering to make the House competitive again. There won't be universal healthcare, free college, significantly higher taxes, or any of the other goals of the party until that happens, and if the opportunity is missed in 2020 it won't come around again until 2030. Winning in 2016 will not help that fight, and it won't help the Republicans counter it either.

The unavoidable truth, I'm afraid, is that 2016 is an election that neither party can afford to win. The party that manages to squeak out a defeat will undoubtedly go into 2018 and 2020 with a much stronger hand, and those elections seem almost certain to have a much larger impact on the future course of our nation.

It is my prediction that Clinton will win her Pyrrhic victory, and she will never achieve the level of support Obama achieved. She will have a very rough Presidency. The mid-term in 2018 will come quickly, and the Democrats will do as Democrats do and toe the party line. Republicans will pick off Democratic Senators in Missouri, Montana, Indiana, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, and possibly Pennsylvania. They will easily retake the Senate. The House will remain red, and any gains the Dems made in 2016 will fade away. Under an unpopular President, the Democrats aren't likely to turn around the battle for the states, and the GOP will hold most their governorships in 2018 (these Governors will still be in office when redistricting occurs). When 2020 rolls around, in all likelihood Clinton will in re-election trouble. It is likely she'll drag her party down in that election cycle also, and thus give the GOP the advantage in congress for another decade.

I'm definitely planning to launch this region in the next few weeks (after talking about it forever). Expect to see small changes popping up to prepare for it.

I'm very pleased to announce that I now own www.thefreestates.com and I'm working on getting an offsite forum fully up and running.

FYI, while I was going to use this region for my new region, I decided to go with The Free States instead.

I had gone back and forth about which name I liked better. Leaving "the" out of the name made the side panel look better, and IMO looked better on the nation page. However, the game assumes if there should be a 'the' before a name it is in the name. That's how the admins named the game created regions (THE Pacifics, and THE Rejected Realms). It doesn't sound right in the issues or on rankings if 'the' is missing before Free States.

Hard decision, but buying thefreestates.com pushed me over to adding "the".

This will now be a backup region.

Forum View

Advertisement