Lumine playing politics wih Tyrion's nomination for VP

[Adam Griffin]

Lumine is taking decisions the Senate used to consider non-partisan and adding partisanship? How terrible. Certainly something you'd never do.

The key difference being that one of them wouldn't try to be partisan while claiming to be doing the exact opposite. Partisanship isn't inherently wrong, but the corrupted cousin that distorts its intent in order to avoid bearing the brunt of its consequences certainly is. Someone has learned well from his mentor.

[Adam Griffin]

Many on the right voted for an administration that they imagined would be considerably less left-wing than the one we have. I don't know why you are all so shocked and appalled that they now seem to be lashing out at it.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Are you implying that individuals can retroactively alter their votes? TPP also voted for Lumine; do we get to recall him because he changed parties mid-term and didn't do or serve exactly as implied? If not, then guess what: there's always the next election!

For all the hubabaloo about the fact DemPGH was elected let us also member the Senate is also elected by the people, last I checked. Being elected, as you all mention, doesn't give one some sort of carte blanche. Which this administration has increasingly acted like it has a right to.

Again, I must ask a seemingly ridiculous question: are we in a parliamentary democracy? If not, then the two have nothing to do with one another in terms of a singular mandate. I still don't understand your point, as the majority of regions elected Labor representation to the Senate, the two at-large Labor candidates who won Senate seats in the past election ranked #1 and #2 in number of preferences, and a majority of voters elected a Labor President and Labor Vice-President understanding full good and well that there were 5 Labor Senators at the time and likely to be 5 after the fact.

Also, please cite what exactly DemPGH has overreached on (and before you say anything about the power debate, please make the distinction between a bill and a law).

It's so cute when you go all populist and pretend to love Athenian democracy or some equivalent.


Also, for the masses who condone this treacherous behavior: I realize that you all aren't used to winning all that often and therefore aren't too familiar with the concept of overreaching - in fact, most of the time you go out of your way to avoid articulating anything for fear of doing so - but the perceived "gotcha!" moment you think you have against us for supporting nationalization of energy is going to fade and flip real fast if you go through with this. When I said you guys wouldn't do it, perhaps I should have more carefully phrased it as, "I didn't think you guys would be stupid enough to do it". Remember: even I became GM.

[Adam Griffin]

I have the impression that this is only an attack against Lumine and the Federalist Party in view of the At-Large elections, only for personal matters and for an ideological questions.

Not really. If anything, the blatant partisan attack-fest for electoral gain began with the character assassination of windjammer by a certain Senator (which mind you, managed to break him but not public support for him), followed by last-minute outrage led by a certain party's loose cannon over a bill that hardly anyone on the right bothered to read until it was up for a final vote, later sprinkled with some fake number-crunching and now an overtly-political attempt to deny the majority will of the people in the last election from being preserved - and of course, all of the nasty PM and off-site smearing that is totally going on right now but no one's talking about publicly.

[Adam Griffin]

I have the impression that this is only an attack against Lumine and the Federalist Party in view of the At-Large elections, only for personal matters and for an ideological questions.

Not really. If anything, the blatant partisan attack-fest for electoral gain began with the character assassination of windjammer by a certain Senator (which mind you, managed to break him but not public support for him), followed by last-minute outrage led by a certain party's loose cannon over a bill that hardly anyone on the right bothered to read until it was up for a final vote, later sprinkled with some fake number-crunching and now an overtly-political attempt to deny the majority will of the people in the last election from being preserved - and of course, all of the nasty PM and off-site smearing that is totally going on right now but no one's talking about publicly.

Do you actually believe the sh**t you type, Griffin? You know full-well what happened with windjammer, and to invoke that now frankly proves that you're just talking out your ass to score points. The things said in this thread about Lumine are much worse than anything anyone even hinted at about windjammer, so lay off.

Now for the matter at hand. I'm refraining from commenting on the vote, but it's kind of laughable to accuse members of the right for failing to read the bill when the very person we're talking about nominating for VP admitted that he didn't read it closely enough and changed his vote on the issue multiple times.

I mean, if you're gonna go for low-hanging political fruit, do it right, man . People know your shtick.

I know that reforms were championed by the VP and initially supported, followed by a blatant questioning of the intent of the VP and subsequent unraveling from there. The catalyst is what I'm concerned with and addressing, and not how it ended, for it wouldn't have ended the way it did had the BS spin not come from a side other than mine.

The Right by and large has been silent and apathetic until two weeks before the at-large election, at which point there now seems to be a never-ending stream of so-called controversies and trials of public opinion that are oh-so-important to have suddenly. You're right: I know what low-hanging political fruit looks like - especially the electorally-expedient kind - and it's been your side that has suddenly started jumping up and down incessantly, trying to grab a pair.

[Adam Griffin]

Weak. C+.

Perhaps you'd like to elaborate on where else I'm wrong...maybe to do with how the same people are framing this administration? Maybe you'd like to describe how this administration has somehow been oh-so-radical when compared to what was promised, as that seems to be the current talking point? What specific pieces of legislation have been signed into law that fit that criteria?

Apparently, bills debated by the Senate that haven't even passed constitute an extremist overreach by the current administration, and especially the President himself. Or would you disagree with the premise of your peers, as a member of the administration? I certainly hope you'll have an answer, because otherwise, I'd assume that this isn't the debate for you.

[Adam Griffin]

Even by Labor standards this is a particularly far-fetched bit of propaganda. A bill that nationalises 10% of the economy (for no reason!), was unanimously supported by the governing party, championed by the President, only failed at the last minute because two Senators became afraid of looking like TNF, and is to be reintroduced until it passes doesn't constitute overreach?

The bill didn't get the attention it deserved because nobody weighed in on it, and the hand-wringing only began once everybody who lacked involvement decided to care. The nationalization of energy has been in our platform for an entire year - maybe longer? Again, it's up to people if they want to read - this wasn't some surprising development. The broader issue itself isn't something that is vociferously opposed as some here would like to think - the specific legislation is bad legislation, which is why it will be completely restructured to reflect that, and most anyone left of center will ultimately wind up supporting it because that's where the actual ideological balance of the game is.

Overreach can be rejected. It generally is.

So nothing to worry about, eh?

And it's clear why, and I'm afraid I don't think it's some inexcusable atrocity that this nominee has been blocked. It has become clear - from, you know, the countless public statements to that effect, that Labor will continue to overreach and push an extremist agenda through the Senate, most specifically the economically suicidal and deeply unpopular energy nationalisation program, and some Senators don't wish to give Labor an effective majority. That's a reasonable position to take considering the entire party seems on the brink of Nixonian paranoia (we are beset by enemies on all sides, comrades!" and an overwhelming desire to get this "win" at all costs.

No, it's not clear why. Again, I'm waiting for someone to outline all of the crazy stuff that's suddenly been enacted into law and that hasn't been self-filtered by our own caucus, even before all of this wing-flapping started. If we're to talk about paranoia, then let's look at all of these diatribes in which it's implied that there's some sort of vast conspiracy to corral all of our votes into some unified construct that will always shove through the most extreme agenda. Has that happened? No. Have we had effective ability to do that with 5 Senators and a VP for the past two months? Yes. Who's been leading this extremist agenda, pray tell? Is it me, who's been essentially MIA from the game since July? Am I basically telling 1 or 2 Labor Senators to break ranks with the majority each time on bills, just to make sure nobody catches on? Some conspiracy there. If anything, the party is out of step because of a lack of management, and not because of some organized effort. And the "Win at all costs" Labor machine has been helpful to many a folk over time, including yourself.  

It's true that Tyrion's backed down on his support for the bill, but you can see why many Senators are troubled by his previous support and the mere fact that he's a Labor vote, who will, like all Labor Senators are at some point, be pushed into supporting an extreme far-left agenda. All that said, if I were a Senator I'd probably vote to confirm him as Vice-President, but that doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate reasons for others to oppose the nomination. To claim that this rejection - let alone the fall of Windjammer, who lost the support of virtually everyone in the administration - are nothing but expressions of partisanship demeans your credibility.

Of course I will say read my response immediately above this for the refutation of this bogus line of thought. Again, show me this grand conspiracy where any really controversial bill has actually made it through in the past two months - 5 Labor Senators voting AYE plus a Labor Vice-President. It just isn't there, and this is all straw-grasping over one piece of legislation and apparently, my failure to frequent certain outlying precincts enough as of late.

To the far-leftism: you say it like it's a bad thing, or if it's not what we've always been at our core. This is why I find these positions to be rather superficial at such a time. I guess you mean it in some sort of earth-shattering, end-of-the-world type of far-leftism that hasn't ever existed before, but again, there's very little that has been brought up that hasn't been standard platform or policy for a long, long time. The fact that the party can't even agree on major components of what we supposedly stand for ought to tell you how likely it is that there's going to be some sort of MASTER PLAN to overthrow everything that is holy in this game to whomever feels that way.

I still find it absolutely hilarious, though, that you're worried about in-game policy (that admittedly you and I both know has absolutely no tangible effect on the game), yet were just as big of a component as many Laborites were (and in the latter stages, more so) in Rimjob. C'mon now, you're really like the last person who should be trying to act holier than moi, partner-in-crime!

Labor has been very clear that they do not care about either the will of the (overwhelming majority!) of the public, the opinion of the Senate, or the merit of this power bill. Why they are shocked and appalled that Senators would reject handing them back a working majority is beyond me.

On what issue? Again, taking one instance of a bill and trying to twist it into a pretzel of "nationalization has been rejected" is ludicrous. Most anyone in this game who spoke out against this rendition of the bill and who is left-of-center supports nationalization in some capacity, and I am confident will come to the table on our revised version (which has already been in the works).

And while we're on the subject and as far as "wills" and majorities go, there has only been one party in this game post-dissolution that has managed to win many a majority (or when not, an effective enough of a plurality) in the regions, in the Senate and at the presidential level for more than a few months at a time. If Labor doesn't have a majority or a consensus to lead (especially by virtue of the last two sets of election results), then any of these other parties sure as hell don't, either, and so the criticism is quite moot. So just who's opinion really should be respected at the end of the day? Apparently election results no longer matter.

I see five Senators who blocked this confirmation, not one. While some have been quiet, Senators Yankee, Cassius, Goldwater, and Spiral are not thralls to Lumine.

We can react by throwing a fit, and we can make all kinds of claims about their devious motivations, but I fail to see how this will resolve our conflict. If the opposition Senators have concerns, we have ignored them. And if they wanted a circus, we have given it to them.

I still am holding out hope that someone will change their mind on the matter, but that decision will probably be made irrespective of any of this.

[Adam Griffin]

Many on the right voted for an administration that they imagined would be considerably less left-wing than the one we have. I don't know why you are all so shocked and appalled that they now seem to be lashing out at it.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read. Are you implying that individuals can retroactively alter their votes? TPP also voted for Lumine; do we get to recall him because he changed parties mid-term and didn't do or serve exactly as implied? If not, then guess what: there's always the next election!

Are you suggesting that voting for someone compels a person to slavishly follow their every desire, come what may? You are suggesting the opposition does not have the right to oppose the government.

For all the hubabaloo about the fact DemPGH was elected let us also member the Senate is also elected by the people, last I checked. Being elected, as you all mention, doesn't give one some sort of carte blanche. Which this administration has increasingly acted like it has a right to.

Again, I must ask a seemingly ridiculous question: are we in a parliamentary democracy? If not, then the two have nothing to do with one another in terms of a singular mandate. I still don't understand your point, as the majority of regions elected Labor representation to the Senate, the two at-large Labor candidates who won Senate seats in the past election ranked #1 and #2 in number of preferences, and a majority of voters elected a Labor President and Labor Vice-President understanding full good and well that there were 5 Labor Senators at the time and likely to be 5 after the fact.

Also, please cite what exactly DemPGH has overreached on (and before you say anything about the power debate, please make the distinction between a bill and a law).

It's so cute when you go all populist and pretend to love Athenian democracy or some equivalent.

Do believe this nonsensical justification? Your majorities in some category or another don't force Senators to bow to the will of the Labor Parties? Do you seriously believe this? Representatives of three parties- the TPP, Federalist, and the DRs, have come out in opposition. Last I checked there were more people in those parties combined than in Labor.

I'm sorry, but I doubt you'll be short-circuiting this.

Says the authoritarian. By that count, 70/170 does not equal a majority either.

You really need to stop acting like you have some pious high ground in all of this while condemning mine, because you especially are in it just to be obstinate like always. Maybe if the voters had elected NOTA to be VP your argument would make a little more sense.