Last night’s debate was attention-grabbing, fiery and high-yielding. With each candidate expressing their views on how to make the state better than they found it.
From threats to intervene in businesses because of gang involvement, to auditing everyone personal income to find and tax the rich amongst the citizens. This unprecedented debate produced some of the most thought provoking answers a representative debate has seen in a long time.
Hosted by Bill Smith, the event had three of the five candidates in attendance, with Chuck Spadina, Raphael Messi, and James Hill making their case to voters and attendees.
Shout News was able to confirm that John Corranado was out of state and, Amara Fox-Vazquez was also unavailable to attend.
James Hill and Chuck Spadina were in open warfare over their policy differences, with points of contention being raised at every question. James Hill usually argues for fiscal and reasonable responsibility, and Chuck Spadina argues for a progressive and higher fiscal expenditure while taking a strong stance against Gangs and the Criminal underground.
Raphael Messi took a measured and supportive approach towards James Hills’ proposals. Usually back up what Mr Hill had to say, and reiterate arguments.
Here is a rundown of the official questions asked.
1. What makes you the better candidate?
Chuck Spadina opened the floor, arguing that he will make citizens money. Using an example of a constituent encounter, and lobbing an initial attach against his opposing candidates.
These gentlemen, Nothing about them screams they are going to make you rich, and famous, and popular. But, I will.
Chuck Spadina (Ind)
James Hill hit back, asking Spadina what one policy he would enact to make people rich. Spandina replied “a policy which gives people money”, and further elaborating it would require further increases to the Universal Basic Income stipend.
Hill continue to question the feasibility of Spandina’s plan and added.
All I’m hoping is that if you elect Chuck, for the love of god, make sure he doesn’t become the treasurer, or you will be bankrupt within a week.
James Hill (LHP)
Raphael Messi concluded that Hill had summed it up and that [Chuck] didn’t “have any plans.”
James Hill, answering the question next argued he had a proven track record and had delivered on one of the ‘biggest legal reforms’ with the Civil Reform Act, amongst a large level of resignations and disruptions to the Congress.
Wrapping up, Raphael Messi argued his track record of ‘not giving up’ and stability throughout his public service career.
2. Should DHS be able to issue concession cards for those in its care?
The Department of Human Services is the government agency which operates rehabilitate care groups, along with operating a number of support services for Veterans, those with mental health matters, disabilities and those needing part time or full time care.
James Hill began the debate, suggesting that the proposal would be a good idea given that the department deals with the most vulnerable people in society. Hill went onto inquire to what type of concessions would exist, either out of Government coffers or out of the commercial sectors profits.
Raphael Messi added that it would be important to have a conversation with business owners before implementing such a policy and overall supported the idea.
Chuck Spadina agreed with the two other candidates, but expressed that the cards should go beyond concessions and allow people to obtain things for free.
You go into a restaurant, you get food for free. You go into an ammunation, you get guns, knifes, bats; car dealerships, anything you want you you get for free if you get given one of these cards; and thats a promise.
Chuck Spadina (Ind)
In response, Representative Hill immediately went on the attack, arguing that the public can see that the policy is financially unfeasible. Chuck asked James Hill why it was unfeasible. With Mr Hill asking another question. “SO where is the money coming from, Chuck?”
Mr Spadina replied saying he would raise the money from ‘Taxes, the government, from the rich people.’ Interjecting, Representative Hill asked what taxes, adding.
I thought that you just said you were going to make everyone rich and more popular. How are you going to do that if you increase and levy new taxes, Chuck? How are you going to do it. Are you going to make everyone rich or are you only going to make some people rich.
James Hill (LHP)
Chuck Spadina defending his position explained that he was going to tax the ‘really really rich’ and stated that they would become ‘more richer’ because the ‘taxes would be given back to them, and the poor.’
He also added that he would need to print more money for the scheme, with Hill adding that it would equate to ‘hyper-inflation.’
Bill Smith, the moderator then asked Mr Spadina who he considers the ‘super wealthy’ to be. He went onto list Representative Hill, SecuroServe, and BurgerShot.
He also added that he would personally audit everyone’s personal finances to ‘work out whats going on.’
Raphael Messi argued to the audience that this was a insane breach of personal privacy
Moderator Bill Smith put the question to the audience, asking if they would raise their hands if they would like Chuck Spadina’s tax audits.
Shout News has confirmed, no one raised their hands in support.
3. Who do you think you could beat in a fist fight out of the Candidates?
Chuck Spadina exclaimed that he could take on ‘busted-up’ James Hill, and cautioned taking on Raphael Messi but argued he could still win against him.
I could take two men at once; that’s a campaign promise.
Chuck Spadina (Ind)
Raphael would be happy to take on Chuck, and noted he had fought James in the past and lost
James used his expensive vocabulary to explain he was not the ‘pugilist he once was’ since the assassination attempt.
4. Do you see a need to strengthen investigative powers into business which could be committing crimes or financial fraud?
The Department of Commerce and Labor is responsible for the auditing and enforcement of business law in the State. Over the past years, various businesses have been caught breaking the law or aiding organized crime.
Chuck Spadina opened by stating he sees ‘dodgy fuckers’ in businesses. Adding that he sees people obscuring their identities with masks behind the register. He is of the stance that there is a substantive amount of Money Laundering occurring in San Andreas businesses.
Returning to a previous point in question two, he added that he would take criminal profits and redistribute them.
Staying steadfast with the status quo, James Hill affirmed his approval of the Department of Commerce and Labor’s ability to undertake and action business audits. He raised concerns about what new kinds of powers could be used but was happy to explore options if presented with them.
Raphael Messi re-affirmed James Hills’ position.
5. Do you see the need for City Mayors for Los Santos, Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay?
Outright saying no to the proposition. Raphael Messi explained he didn’t see the need for Mayors and for further separation.
James Hill queried what they could actually do. But was open to the idea, if there was a good reason.
Taking a different position, Chuck Spadina argued that there was a ‘big divide’ between North and South and that a Sandy and Paleto Mayor could address people in the north ‘being forgotten.’
The people up north feel like they are being forgotten. Down here in the big city, all these city slickers, they’re too concerned with their own business— there is so much going on here. I think, splitting up is what’s needed, and taking care of the people up there is important.
Chuck Spadina (Ind)
Closing out, Raphael Messi and James Hill seperately spoke to how they would be the best fit for State Representative. Highlighing their track record and asking for your vote.
Chuck Spadina took a different track and rapped a mixtape on stage.
Direct and Public Questions
The debate then moved on to direct questions from the public. You can watch the full set on the Weazel News broadcast.
For the remainder of the debate, Chuck Spadina was on the defensive, with his positions and policies being questioned by members of the public and the candidates on stage.
He reiterated that he wanted to investigate businesses and write laws which would allow him to audit personal bank accounts as a part of his tax scheme which would re-distribute wealth.
James Hill was asked by Chuck Spadina about his assassination attempt. Deflecting, Mr Hill didn’t want to go beyond what was previously provided to Shout News.
Chief Justice Rajesh Gupta asked Spadina if he could name and explain any law that has been passed in the outgoing congress. Spadina quote, ‘refused’ to answer.
Questioning further, the Chief Justice asked if he could spell ‘Representative.’
When asked if Security Companies should have access to Class-two firearms. James Hill replied that it would be a good idea and Raphael Messi and Chuck Spadina agreed.
Morticia Rhodes, an employee of the Parks Department, confronted Spadina, arguing that gangs-owned business was a form of rehabilitation and a chance for gangs ‘to be better.’
Spadina went on the defensive, stating that his position explicitly wasn’t about gang-owned businesses, but criminals who use businesses to commit crimes like money laundering.
Mortica later posted in a reply to Chuck Spadina,
Morticia Benitez-Rhodes
@MorbinMorti
Anyone with sense wouldn’t vote for you i think you did more dmg coming to the debates then the folks who just didnt show honestly good luck dawg but i aint voting for nor anyone else in SAPD and i can say the K9s do not approve of you
Chuck Spadina’s comments about Gang affiliated/owned businesses was a key and re-occuring question during the public questions section of the debate. Spadina continued to reiterate
Bill invited ‘AP’ to the stage, who asked about Chuck’s propsal surrounding Gang Businesses. Spadina argued if Charles Manson (a cult criminal and murderer) ran a business it wouldn’t be a ‘net-benefit’ to the society. Prompted by Bill Smith, AP explained that ‘I kill people for a living; I shoot people for a living, and sometimes run them over.’ In reply Spadina added
I think he should be given the death penalty […] get him out of here then, give him the chair.
Chuck Spadina (Ind)
On a completely different note, a member of the public asked about improving the sustainability of the environment. Representative Hill stated he wasn’t aware of any issue, but believed the status quo is sufficient and open to discussing the matter further.
Chuck Spadina responded with a position on vehicles. Explaining that new cars were producing emissions and causing detrimental effects. He also pointed out to a San Andreas Parks Department vehicle which was keeping watch on the hillside, arguing that the rangers could instead have walked instead of driving on the nature-filled hill. He also raised concerns about birds hitting skyscrapers, adding they were too tall and developers should ‘knock a few levels’ of the buildings.
Raphael Messi offered advice on ways to help our environment by walking to places. Representative Hill added he cycles.
Secretary of State Jax Hendrix asked Chuck Spadina in a point-blank interrogation-like question if he was able to communicate (at a bare minimum) with professionalism. He replied that he would ‘figure it out’ as he went along and disagreed with the Secretary of State’s assessment.
Secretary Hendrix then asked Spadina if he had planned anything he wanted to accomplish with detail. He responded saying he had, and then spoke to his auditing taxation policy. When asked about the implementation by the Secretary, more specifically what part of the constitution allowed it. He replied that the ‘Second Amendment’ allowed him, then backtracked saying he would amend it to allow him to.
As a note, the San Andreas Constitution does not have an explicit ‘second amendment’. However, the second amendment to the San Andreas Constitution did not grant any powers to the legislature, only to the Governor, by allowing the governor to stay executions and pardon convictions.
When asked how he would amend the Constitution in detail, he declined to answer.
Wrapping up the debate, a statement from John Corranado was read out as he was unable to attend.
I’m John Corranado, born and raised in Los Santos, and I am looking to represent the citizens of Los Santos as a State Representative with the same zeal that I have represented them in both criminal and civil court for the last three years.
I won’t sit here and run on promises that I can’t keep, but what I can promise you is that I will remain committed to staying connected to the community and providing clarity with everything I do to represent San Andreas.
I will remain a strong voice for the people throughout my term, addressing their concerns in the Legislator, to government leaders, department heads, and follow through with the citizens bringing concerns to me.
Through my experience in San Andreas, I have taken an interest in working to update outdated laws such as reckless driving laws, working with security companies to give them more tools to protect their clients, making adoptions nullifiable without the ability to contest it, and reviewing previous laws that may warrant a second look with a fresh set of eyes.
John Corranado (Ind.) – Statement
In conclusion, this debate was quite the policy roller-coaster, and a departure from usual debate where all the candidates agree on every point raised.
It remains to be seen if politics as usual reigns supreme, or will Spadina’s new policy approach resonate with voters.
With only seven days left until voting begins, stay tuned with Shout News for all the latest.
February Regular Election
Leave a Reply