Party idea, two right wing parties

[Adam Griffin]

Libertarian and Conservative. There seems to be conflict between these two wings of the Federalist Party. Federalists, what do you think?

Those pesky Jehovahs Witnesses are at my door again!!!

I don't think I've ever articulated just how much this makes me giggle.

Also, I think two right-wing parties would be a fabulous idea! After all, they're not the rag-tag bunch of heathens that they once were.

[Adam Griffin]

It would also once again give some power to those currently in the Federalist Party who consistently get steamrolled time and time again by the majority of so-called "conservatives" in elections for mushy moderate candidates who've been playing way too long. It's great to win, but pretty pointless if you don't elect anyone who bothers to articulate a belief system of substance. At least JCL takes the time out to articulate his own ideas and not just chime in on what others are doing. People like him would have more bargaining power if they would stop automatically giving their votes to the watered-down, over-sized Federalist Party.

[Adam Griffin]

Griffin, I feel deeply flattered by your sudden interest in the well-being of Atlasian conservatives.

Believe it or not, there's actually some genuine sentiment behind it.

[Adam Griffin]

Yes, Griffin, that's a great idea. It'd not like a party of people who are "too conservative" for the Federalists would never win elections or anything like that.

They said the same thing about Labor, until you know, we actually organized. The Federalist Party - probably even with the most extreme elements removed - would still be larger than Labor at this point. This whole "poor poor pitiful right/we can't compete" dialogue is a tad dated at this point.

They'd be able to force you guys into accommodating them - lest you want to lose their votes and thus, elections. It's about not them winning: it's about them using their power to ensure that the status quo right doesn't take them for granted and thus elects some of them in the process.

[Adam Griffin]

Griffin, I feel deeply flattered by your sudden interest in the well-being of Atlasian conservatives.

Believe it or not, there's actually some genuine sentiment behind it.

It's quite evident that this is an attempt to drive a wedge between different groups within the Federalist Party. I can't even blame you for that - you are part of the Labor Party leadership so weakening our party is in your interest - but it's fairly obvious what you're trying here.

I can assure you that if I were still in leadership, this GOTV wouldn't look like it does.

Of course I'm trying to drive a wedge in, but that does not mean that what I am saying is not true. You're an ideologue, yourself: how does it feel to have to constantly water down your selection and positions (when they're actually articulated) for no good reason? It's not the Whig Party anymore. I keep hearing about this unified right - a unified right can elect whatever type of candidate it wants to at this point. There's no reason you guys couldn't have elected JCL & Maxwell, and you know it. Continue on this path and you'll beat the new merger going on in the other thread for the title of Liberal 2.0. You'll win elections but you'll accomplish jack-shit in terms of conservative governance.

The far-right in this party needs to make its voice heard and demand representation. If it can't succeed in that, then it should take its votes elsewhere.

[Adam Griffin]

What I can certainly say at this point is that you and other representatives of your party are doing a good job at unifying the Federalist Party even more.

Oh, sweetie, we've been doing that for you guys for a looong time. Though I'm glad you admitted that half of the organization of the Federalist Party is due to the Labor Party; most movements in this game are nothing but anti-Labor action. Do keep in mind, though, that this discussion was not started by any of us. Still, how could I resist weighing in?

[Adam Griffin]

Here's the issue Griffin: the party doesn't decide who we're going to elect. We don't sit down and try to rig elections on behalf of two of our candidates at the expense of a third. We have some degree of GOTV obviously, but the party isn't telling people whom to vote for beyond listing our candidates. The candidates themselves sometimes tell people whom to vote for naturally , but the party isn't going to carve ourselves into nice little factions and tell people, okay now this group vote for JCL and this group vote for Maxwell, and have no one vote for Tmth because, apparently he's the type of nebulous moderate we need to purge ourselves of in case we are ever in danger of winning elections. Maybe Labor runs itself like the Soviet Gulag, but the Federalists do not.

So you guys just throw your votes at the wall and see what sticks? Interesting - but unfortunately I do not believe that for one second. Your party is hell-bent on winning at this point and will do whatever it takes to do so. Hey, I'm not knocking it - but let's not dress it up as anything other than what it is. How exactly are your voters making their decisions? There's not much out there in terms of articulated policy: PM pleas or party instruction seem to be the most logical choices. Based on what I've seen in the past, JCL certainly should have more support than he seems to be getting in this race from you all.

There's also a question of loyalty - you guys haven't had any mass infusion of people from other parties as of late, so it just boggles me that there's no loyalty to the candidates who have been true Federalists for ages. Whether it's two moderates, a moderate and a conservative or two conservatives, you guys have the ability to win two seats hands-down. The choice that has been made displays a disregard for your more ideological elements - and yes, that is something which our two parties see differently.

What I can certainly say at this point is that you and other representatives of your party are doing a good job at unifying the Federalist Party even more.

Oh, sweetie, we've been doing that for you guys for a looong time. Though I'm glad you admitted that half of the organization of the Federalist Party is due to the Labor Party; most movements in this game are nothing but anti-Labor action. Do keep in mind, though, that this discussion was not started by any of us. Still, how could I resist weighing in?

Conservatism by defintion is defined by the actions of the left that it is reacting to.

Thank you! Finally, someone admits that you guys base decisions off of what the left does in this game. Makes you wonder what will happen if you guys ever actually control the Senate + Presidency.

I must say I find it wonderfull that this concern for having the right get its voice heard to have developed amongst people on the left, a group whose approach for a long time was on driving such people like Pingvin and JCL out and if not that then discrediting them at every turn as a means of ostracizing them.

Yes, it's expected that we would do that. What's hilarious is that you guys are doing the same thing to them with your votes. If it's as organic as TJ says, then that truly means that there is no home in the Federalist Party for the far-right (and hell, maybe even the center-right).

[Adam Griffin]

And for the Federalists who think I'm being too hard on them: read the CU thread where I posted. I'd much rather help elect a bunch of right-wingers that will most likely botch things than hand complete control of the country back to the barely-left.

[Adam Griffin]

Is there ever a situation in life where someone getting screwed isn't viewed as unavoidable by the left?

We have to screw the moderates to support the right, we have to screw the right to support the moderates.

Perhaps I should be asking whether or not you think there is such a thing as common ground.

Your party chose to throw JCL under the bus - that was avoidable.

And there's plenty of common ground in this game, so much so that actual strong stances on issues apparently can't be taken. Laborites are viewed as "extremists" when they do not agree with pro-business, heavily-reliant social policy that for the most part has already been achieved. Federalists feel like they cannot actually say what they believe for fear of losing elections. Take a look at the PC thread and you'll see people pouring out over the notion that you actually have to agree with a vast majority of what said group adopts as its platform - as opposed to it being a pointless clique.

The reason that both of our parties are still struggling in this game when compared to our actual numbers is because that "common ground" - in this game - is nothing more than pan-ideological, personality-based nonsense that revolves around who can send out the most flattering PMs to voters who insist on being moderate heroes. If I had taken the "common ground" approach as opposed to standing where I actually stand, then I'd already have been President.

If you want common ground to exist for tangible purposes - and not just some drivel that gets punted around during elections - then your party should consider embracing the members that actually stand for something in the first place. Otherwise, we all might as well fuse and pander to the least decisive ones in the group.

[Adam Griffin]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why did Christ say, "He made them male and female?" It's all connected together. The ideal of marriage is one man and one woman, and Christ explicitly stated this as so. Everything outside of this is sin.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, he specifically affirmed that marriage is between one man and one woman. This *IS* significant, since SJoyce was stating how he could 'reconcile' his Christianity with support for gay marriage. The two are not compatible and gay marriage is incompatible with the Christian definition of marriage as Christ himself stated.

"not doing so wouldn't have made sense given the nature of most same-sex relationships at that time."

If Jesus Christ were merely 'expressing the concept of marriage at the time', why did the disciples say after, "if that is the case it is better for a man and a woman not to marry?" Jesus expressed the transcendent definition of marriage - marriage for all times.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, show me. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that Jesus said, "gender is irrelevant to marriage" You said it. Where is this? I don't see it.

You've got absolutely nothing. There's no evidence for your position whatsoever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Conservatives who have expressed their opinion that gay marriage is wrong have been fired. So yes, gay marriage does have a profound negative effect on my life.

So, any *other* terrible arguments? ".

No need to be snippy.  You really don't have a reason to be.  If Jesus was trying to condemn gay couples, He would have made that perfectly clear.  The passage in question is about divorce and only about divorce.  The Pharisees specifically asked Him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, NOTHING about whether it's wrong to be in a gay relationship.  The Pharisees argued that if divorce is wrongful, than people are better off not to marry at all, but Jesus responded by saying that there are eunuchs who were born that way and people who choose to live like eunuchs, and not marry.  Again, nothing about gays.  You are inserting things into scripture that aren't there just because you don't like gay people.  You are continuously shifting the burden of proof to SJoyce and myself when it is clearly your duty to prove that Jesus explicitly condemned same-sex relationships.  You are the one who made the case that gender is relevant in a marriage according to Christ, so you must prove that is what He said.  I cannot prove a negative.

Not only are you intellectually dishonest, you are unintelligent.  Now, until you can provide solid evidence that Jesus specifically condemned same-sex relationships in the context of condemning same-sex relationships, I refuse to engage with you any longer.  How does that sound?

And for the record, plenty of people have been fired simply for being gay.  Do you have any problems with that?  Probably not.

Idiot.