Survey Atlasia: Opinion of The Movement By Generation

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

This poll will last for three days and is for all registered voters.


The Atlasian Regionalist movement was born of the concern that Nyman was absorbing more and more power at the expense of the regional powers and authorities. Its first appearence occured as early as 2004, over the issue of boundary changes without regional input. It came back several times, most notably in mid 2008 when it led to the formation of the Regional Protection Party in reaction to a push to abolish regional Senate seats. Since then, the primary organizing principle for every major right of center party has been protection of Regional Rights. However, it is not exclusive to the right as many in the center and left have also espoused support to varying degrees.

The Regionalists have most consistently been opposed by the radicals and previous similar movements and sometimes by reformers.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

In 2013, DemPGH called himself "most pro-regional guy on the left". His position on ratifying on amendments, made me reconsider my desire to not drink alcohol.

As for secession, I have opposed every secession attempt since 2009, its part and parcel to the display name. I would hardly consider it a trademark of the regionalist movement. The last such effort, was led by radicals who have mostly opposed the regionalist movement.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

In 2013, DemPGH called himself "most pro-regional guy on the left". His position on ratifying on amendments, made me reconsider my desire to not drink alcohol.

As for secession, I have opposed every secession attempt since 2009, its part and parcel to the display name. I would hardly consider it a trademark of the regionalist movement. The last such effort, was led by radicals who have mostly opposed the regionalist movement.

I see you've spotted my nefarious scheme: get Yankee drunk, then win every election from now 'til the Rapture!

There were definitely some anti-Radical regionalists who supported the Secession Clause at the Convention (Leinad and Tmth come to mind), though to be fair a significant number did oppose it (yourself, Duke, etc.). All in all, I feel like the Lafayette of the regionalist revolution: generally supportive of its goals and certainly not one of the royalists, but concerned that in some instances we're going too far, too fast.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

In 2013, DemPGH called himself "most pro-regional guy on the left". His position on ratifying on amendments, made me reconsider my desire to not drink alcohol.

As for secession, I have opposed every secession attempt since 2009, its part and parcel to the display name. I would hardly consider it a trademark of the regionalist movement. The last such effort, was led by radicals who have mostly opposed the regionalist movement.

I see you've spotted my nefarious scheme: get Yankee drunk, then win every election from now 'til the Rapture!

There were definitely some anti-Radical regionalists who supported the Secession Clause at the Convention (Leinad and Tmth come to mind), though to be fair a significant number did oppose it (yourself, Duke, etc.). All in all, I feel like the Lafayette of the regionalist revolution: generally supportive of its goals and certainly not one of the royalists, but concerned that in some instances we're going too far, too fast.

When it comes to revolutions:

Glorious Revolution beats French Revolution every time.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

In 2013, DemPGH called himself "most pro-regional guy on the left". His position on ratifying on amendments, made me reconsider my desire to not drink alcohol.

As for secession, I have opposed every secession attempt since 2009, its part and parcel to the display name. I would hardly consider it a trademark of the regionalist movement. The last such effort, was led by radicals who have mostly opposed the regionalist movement.

I see you've spotted my nefarious scheme: get Yankee drunk, then win every election from now 'til the Rapture!

There were definitely some anti-Radical regionalists who supported the Secession Clause at the Convention (Leinad and Tmth come to mind), though to be fair a significant number did oppose it (yourself, Duke, etc.). All in all, I feel like the Lafayette of the regionalist revolution: generally supportive of its goals and certainly not one of the royalists, but concerned that in some instances we're going too far, too fast.

When it comes to revolutions:

Glorious Revolution beats French Revolution every time.

No arguments there - given the choice, I always to prefer to keep my head attached to my shoulders.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Generally favorable, though I'm opposed to some of its more extreme policies (secessionism, allowing one Region to veto amendments to the Constitution).

In 2013, DemPGH called himself "most pro-regional guy on the left". His position on ratifying on amendments, made me reconsider my desire to not drink alcohol.

As for secession, I have opposed every secession attempt since 2009, its part and parcel to the display name. I would hardly consider it a trademark of the regionalist movement. The last such effort, was led by radicals who have mostly opposed the regionalist movement.

I see you've spotted my nefarious scheme: get Yankee drunk, then win every election from now 'til the Rapture!

There were definitely some anti-Radical regionalists who supported the Secession Clause at the Convention (Leinad and Tmth come to mind), though to be fair a significant number did oppose it (yourself, Duke, etc.). All in all, I feel like the Lafayette of the regionalist revolution: generally supportive of its goals and certainly not one of the royalists, but concerned that in some instances we're going too far, too fast.

When it comes to revolutions:

Glorious Revolution beats French Revolution every time.

No arguments there - given the choice, I always to prefer to keep my head attached to my shoulders.

Its more legalistic and less sexy, but that lends to its stability, strength and endurance. France had two Napoleons and even a return to the Monarchy, followed by a very weak Republic. It took 150 years to finally produce a stable system, some Revolution.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nice job, radicals, nice job.




I am shocked, shocked I tell you to find out that blowing stuff up to "commanded attention and force people to accept 'reality", is as successful as garden variety terrorism.

Rimjob
Dissolutionism
NE Secession

FAIL
FAIL
FAIL