Whig Party Convention, Bird-in-Hand, PA

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm neutral on Supersonic's suggestion.

Either way, he opens up an interesting door... I wouldn't mind having a bit of a discussion on our military-related positions. As it stands, the other parties seem woefully prepared to lead our country to defeat if Atlasia was ever threatened or attacked.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So I'm thinking, how do we reconcile what Hagrid has just with our own significant noninterventist view. It seems like proper defense has always taking a back seat to the combined left's desire for massive domestic programs and I believe that has been to our ill.

Appreciate the comment, JCL. I guess what I'm wondering is, what constitutes a non-interventionalist view, and do a significant number of us actually have one? In an ideal world of Whig majorities, would we go into Iran to pre-empt a nuclear attack?

Also, to clarence: I sure wish I could be as optimistic as you.
For example, conscription would be one of the most unfortunate things in the world, bar the total defeat of Atlasia. Unfortunately, I just don't have faith in 4/5ths or even 2/3rds of the senate to vote for it if we came down to a situation where the survival of our nation would depend on it. That's why I couldn't support the recent amendment.

Am I just more of a "Bush**te" than the rest of the party? I will stand with the Whigs regardless, but I'm curious to see what page we're all on.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Due to TJ's announcement that he would not seek re-election we should try to find a second candidate for an at-large seat as soon as possible.

Hmmmm....

My thoughts exactly.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Do we know when Simfan and clarence are planning to return?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Franzl - Abstain
NVTownsend  - Aye
BaconKing- Abstain
Seatown - Nay
Snowstalker - Nay
Marokai Blue - Nay
Xahar - Nay
Hashemite - Nay
AndrewTX - Aye
SJoyceFla - Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

It would seem so, but I do appreciate Snowstalker's sentiment. If the polls are any indication, we're looking at an extremely Liberal senate. The only two candidates I'm most invested in supporting are myself and clarence. So if we do make a trade-off for top five preferences with some other party, it could be to the Whig Party's benefit... (as much as I hate to say it).

I'll have to give it some thought. I'm very torn. I just want what's best for our party and the country.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

So, I've thought about it, and my very candid thoughts are this: clarence will have enough support from Liberal and Whig voters to be elected without this pact. If we do enter into this pact, any Labour members who follow through (and that's assuming some will) will probably be more inclined to support clarence, who will likely win without the pact. Only problem is, the pact could actually upset the Liberals enough for them to direct support away clarence. We don't want that.

So is the trade-off worth it, considering we are probably ideologically closer to folks like Townsend? I'm beginning to think it might not be.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Additionally, we should consider adding a plank to our platform which says that we are supportive of regional rights and as much independence of the regions from the federal government as possible.

How far does "as much as possible" go? Surely you're not thinking of making the regions completely independent?

No, that's not my intention. What I mean is that no new laws should be passed and no actions taken by the federal government that restrict our regions in any way. Rather, we should seek to find new ways to grant the regions more rights - but still within the federal state of Atlasia.

I agree. I plan to work on this issue as much as I can if I'm elected to the senate.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I have remained friendly with the Imperial Bloc throughout my time in the region. I believe in fighting for regional rights, and I believe that the South comprises a distinct cultural society within a unified Atlasia. If I was not a Whig, I would join the Imperial Bloc. That being said, I am a Whig, I enjoy being a Whig, and I will not willingly forfeit my membership.

So with that in mind, I cannot be supportive of this language. If it comes up for a vote, I will not support it. If it wins, you will have to expel me from the party. If I am expelled from the party, I will reluctantly move to another region and re-apply for membership.

Our two parties are very cooperative already when it comes to federal elections, and I believe we lose more than we gain by making this deal.

I know we've worked very closely over the course of this election, ZuWo, but I just can't support what you propose. I have the utmost respect for the Imperial Bloc–but I will not allow myself to be compelled to join a party.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I sent my concerns via pm to SJoyceFla before reading the thread, and now I wish to God I'd copied them to somewhere else first.

Maybe he wouldn't mind quoting the pm here? I'm on my phone, so the "typing" is a bit difficult.

A question though: Why couldn't we maintain such a formalized alliance without requiring folks to switch parties?  Any non-IB candidate running in the South would just have to accept that they'd be preferenced second to their friends in the Bloc by Bloc members... which, if I may say, is something we've been living with fine for quite sometime.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

You fine principled folks shouldn't have to change for anyone

In all honesty though, I don't care too much that you didn't support us... that's for you to decide (and after the June IDS campaign, I don't blame you ). My point, though, is that an alliance like this would look fine and dandy on paper, but I don't think it would achieve anything different than what the current reality already is.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Cheers, everyone! Appreciate the support.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I will second the motion for a vote of non-confidence in Simfan. He's a great guy, but I think our party is in the midst of a very positive upward turn, and we need an active leadership voice at this time.

(Also, a big welcome to our newest members. )

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'm fine with giving people more time to discuss the IB-Whig deal, but I'll be honest: My mind is pretty much made up. I don't think we gain much by making this change.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Aye

[HagridOfTheDeep]

[1] Supersonic
[2] 20RP12

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I would be very interested in working on a more comprehensive regional rights plank sometime down the line, but I agree that its current form is a little too restrictive.

Abstain

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Nay

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I must say, this has been an outstanding convention.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, is the Whig Liberty Caucus affiliated to the 'official' Whig party? It's acting as a party within a party.

It purports to be. I don't really have a problem with it, but it might be good to clarify the powers of subsidiary caucuses in our rules. Their ability to endorse a candidate isn't really official (a caucus endorsement would not appear on a presidential ballot), so I'd look into specifying that our caucuses would be able to make recommendations for endorsements. Kind of like how senate committees recommend whether or not legislation should be passed.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My suggestions are as follows:

Chugwater, Wyoming
Big Chimney, West Virginia
Humptulip, Washington
Canadian, Texas
Trophy Club, Texas
Slaughterville, Oklahoma
Three Legs Town, Ohio
Little Switzerland, North Carolina
Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
Ronkonkoma, New York
Elephant Butte, New Mexico
Weeping Water, Nebraska
Hungry Horse, Montana
Pine Stump Junction, Michigan
Rabbit Hash, Kentucky
Yellow Jacket, Colorado
Rough and Ready, California
Greasy Corner, Arkansas

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Mideast Assembly Endorsement Ballot

[1] SPC

Whig Party City Conference Ballot

[1] Kill Devil Hills, North Carolina
[2] Ronkonkoma, New York
[3] Chugwater, Wyoming
[4] Big Chimney, West Virginia
[5] Hungry Horse, Montana
[6] Trophy Club, Texas
[7] Slaughterville, Oklahoma
[8] Elephant Butte, New Mexico

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Also, once this vote is done, I think we oughta discuss our opinions on the Equal Rights Amendment... and possibly come up with some strategies to block its passage.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I guess we'd have to call for a non-confidence vote in clarence, allow Supersonic to ascend to the chairmanship, vote for a new vice-chairman, and then call for another vote of non-confidence in the new chairman.

To be completely honest, there are a lot of steps in that process that would probably not be conducive to what Simfan wants to see happen. I'm all for trying it and letting the members decide, but clarence has been relatively active. If, for whatever reason, clarence did not survive the confidence vote, Supersonic has proven that he'd be a more-than-capable successor.

Usually non-confidence votes happen for a pretty good reason... At this time, I just don't think there'd be enough recognition that we need to change leadership.

That's my two cents's worth of straight talk.