Temporary Headquarters of the Labor Party (Leadership election)

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

EDIT: And Indy/Lib Dem registration practically denotes a wish to 'die off in the wilderness.'

[windjammer]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

[JustinTimeCuber]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

To West_Midlander's defense, the President has, at least in public, been posing as left of center.
He also backs Peebs for Governor, so he clearly isn't a party-line Federalist voter. I found his reasoning a bit lacking, but that's his decision.

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

To West_Midlander's defense, the President has, at least in public, been posing as left of center.
He also backs Peebs for Governor, so he clearly isn't a party-line Federalist voter. I found his reasoning a bit lacking, but that's his decision.

I'd like to add that my endorsements do not reflect a partisan nature, whatsoever, endorsing a Federalist for President and two Federalists for the House, as well as a Liberal Democrat and 3 Laborites for CoD as well as Peebs for Governor.

[windjammer]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Everyone knows that West_Midlander is trying to make the Commie Feds great again. Despite my jokes, fhtagn is not a True Commie Fed™, so...

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

Parties don't have to occupy one singularity of ideology. In the 30s, Southern Democrats shared the same affiliation with Progressives, leftys and New Dealers under the Roosevelt Coalition (all registered Democratic).

Even today, major, functioning parties (the Democrats for example) have factions that vary heavily (Dems are typically liberal (left-center), with a Left-wing populist faction, a Progressive faction and even Centrist and Conservative factions).

Bipartisanship is not the prime reason for the switch, the conditions that spawned my party change were described above.

[windjammer]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

Parties don't have to occupy one singularity of ideology. In the 30s, Southern Democrats shared the same affiliation with Progressives, leftys and New Dealers under the Roosevelt Coalition (all registered Democratic).

Well that was a coalition of progressive and racist whites united to create the welfare state.

I fail to see how a "Sanders progressive" has anything in common with the federalists like Pit.

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

Parties don't have to occupy one singularity of ideology. In the 30s, Southern Democrats shared the same affiliation with Progressives, leftys and New Dealers under the Roosevelt Coalition (all registered Democratic).

Well that was a coalition of progressive and racist whites united to create the welfare state.

I fail to see how a "Sanders progressive" has anything in common with the federalists like Pit.

It would be impossible to align with every member of the Federalists or any other party. Not to mention, PiT has a lot of common-sense stances that anyone can get on board with.

[windjammer]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

Parties don't have to occupy one singularity of ideology. In the 30s, Southern Democrats shared the same affiliation with Progressives, leftys and New Dealers under the Roosevelt Coalition (all registered Democratic).

Well that was a coalition of progressive and racist whites united to create the welfare state.

I fail to see how a "Sanders progressive" has anything in common with the federalists like Pit.

It would be impossible to align with every member of the Federalists or any other party.

The problem is that you don't even align with a majority of them.

[West_Midlander]

I have a question before we vote. Mr. Windjammer, as the current Chief Justice, will you resign your post on the Supreme Court is you become a partisan official?

No
Oakvale was Justice and chair of the TPP, Yankee was Justice and chair of the feds and it didn't bother anyone.
I don't plan to be chair for a long period anyway, just to fix some things and go back to retirement (if elected of course!)

Good answer. It aggravated me so much IRL when Ellison promised to leave the House if he became chair (after asked/pressured if he would), while Corporate Dems had no problem w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz holding a House seat & the DNC Chair-ship. (He and the asker are at fault FWIW, they gave him a loaded, hypocritical question, and he just bent to their will).

I'm curious,
You seem to support the Sanders faction, so you are not a moderate and clearly a very leftwing progressive.

So why did you join a party who is ideologically a center-right party with some center left liberals?

The Old Guard of the Party had been, when I joined as very much so prior, orthodox in promoting a continuous adherence to 'party policy' among party-members, imo. Though it seems that era may have died alongside Nev's activity in Atlasia.

That doesn't explain why you have joined a center right party.

Like you said, the Feds have quite a few center-leftists, as well. I think the Federalist Main Street Partnership will do a lot to make the party more moderate.

But you aren't a moderate liberal , you supported Sanders.

I am a Progressive, I supported Sanders. But I am deeply bipartisan. I have some centrist/center-right stances. With the existence of the ACP, the Federalists (esp. under the leadership of dfw) are barely right of center. What better way to move the conversation, yes, to the left, but more importantly, in a Populist, anti-Establishment direction, than to participate in a field of differing ideas as opposed to an echo chamber?

Being bipartisan means that you can work with the opposition on various issues to get things done. That doesn't mean you have to become a member of the other party.

That is this kind of thing that almost killed the game some years ago and that is killing it today. Parties must have some "coherence" ideologically, in order for the voter to have a clear choice.

That doesn't make any sense for a Sanders leftwing person to join a centrist to rightwing party.

Parties don't have to occupy one singularity of ideology. In the 30s, Southern Democrats shared the same affiliation with Progressives, leftys and New Dealers under the Roosevelt Coalition (all registered Democratic).

Well that was a coalition of progressive and racist whites united to create the welfare state.

I fail to see how a "Sanders progressive" has anything in common with the federalists like Pit.

It would be impossible to align with every member of the Federalists or any other party.

The problem is that you don't even align with a majority of them.

What sets this standard? Literally, the existence of minority factions in political parties, past and present, rules this out as a necessity. I see it as a pragmatic, coherent choice to side with a common-sense, effective party generally without a party-line orthodoxy, that has the means at its disposal, through electability, to secure freedoms, and quality of life and condition for the citizenry.

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Looks like I have to fire my Psychopathic manipulator ray at some people again

[JustinTimeCuber]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

[Adam Griffin]

Look, being the old guy who built Labor out of nothing and apparently somebody all the newer players dislike because some people go around saying I'm a meanie ( ), it's very simple what this party needs.

I left because this party is a hollow shell of the glorious existence it maintained for years. Primarily, loyalty and unity completely disappeared. There are multiple reasons for why this has happened: a breakdown of consistent, engaged leadership; little-to-no outreach to newer players to incorporate them into the broader fold; massive recruitment efforts that basically focused on quantity instead of quality; tons of players coming in all at once (which made all the former more difficult to handle); external pressure from other "power-players"; a lack of consequences (executed by the members, not the leadership) for bad behavior; and more.

For whatever reason, it seems the newest players are more...sensitive than in the past. I'm not sure why, but fundamentally, this is an elections simulation. In order to have any meaningful career or prospects, you need a crowd of people with whom to stand. Parties are the most logical and healthy format for that to take place in this game. When you take the route of the President and other former players, it causes harm to the core functions of the game (i.e. it becomes more about friendship than policy, ideology and governance).

The Labor Party - at its core - cannot function without loyalty. Contrary to the whining of some, that is not loyalty to any Supreme Leader or whatever. It is loyalty to the party itself, its values and its fellow members. Labor itself is an anomaly in that prior to it, no fully left-wing political party in this game ever became dominant in the decade or so prior: it was all basically a bunch of "muh fiscal responsibility and social liberalism" to varying degrees. In order to remain relevant and defy the natural political gravity of the game, loyalty to one another must be concrete.

Some examples of this include:

• supporting party-nominated candidates you might not personally like, understanding that your political future also will depend on fellow party members who don't like you doing the same
• not taking the bait and publicly dissing or making fun of fellow party members (either here or in IRC) when prompted by right-wingers or splinter-cells who are just trying to start something
• accepting that you are not 100% of the puzzle and that dozens of members must come to compromise and consensus based on what the bulk of the party deems necessary
• publicly shaming people who try to dissolve partisan boundaries (which are healthy for the game) and replace them with personality cults
• voting as elected officials for your party's candidates in legislative bodies to be speakers etc
• having a proactive desire to be a part of a bigger family, and understanding that said dynamic is a two-way street

Another lesson many Laborites would be well-advised to learn - and one that it took me quite some time to fully embrace - is being fine with saying goodbye. When somebody self-jettisons, say "see you later!". Almost always, these individuals will be types who were previously causing some form of mischief (whether that be criticizing other members, voting for candidates not endorsed by the party, playing both sides and/or leaking info, somebody successfully brainwashing them, or anything similar). Any party is always stronger without those types present. I learned it is far better to have a party of 30 people who are operating on the same wavelength than having 50 people and dealing with the machinations of many who have no loyalty, consideration or respect for their fellow members, constantly undermining the party's ability to do anything. There's no point in chasing after people who don't want to belong: let them go.

And if anybody has a problem with anything I've said here, tough titties. This is a political simulator: it is how things are supposed to work when the game is healthy. Sadly, all too many who are newer have never experienced this form of gameplay, as things have generally remained peachy-keen on the partisan/ideological front since reset. Atlasia at its core is not fundamentally different in terms of the partisanship, relationships and interactions of RL politics when it is operating at its best. If you want to play a "nice guy FF" game without conflict or whatever, then go spin the bottle or do a Sudoku puzzle.

Looks like I have to fire my Psychopathic manipulator ray at some people again

Pro-tip: it's not a LOA if you're still posting, hovering on the forum and lurking on the "Who's Online" page 20 hours per day

[fhtagn]

Everyone knows that West_Midlander is trying to make the Commie Feds great again. Despite my jokes, fhtagn is not a True Commie Fed™, so...

#MakeCommieFedsGreatAgain

[Terry the Fat Shark]

Pro-tip: it's not a LOA if you're still posting, hovering on the forum and lurking on the "Who's Online" page 20 hours per day

LOA is whatever I want it to be, butttt I deleted the LOA like a hour later soooo

[JustinTimeCuber]

TimTurner
Windjammer

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@Adam
You were the one who was trying to convince me that the game has changed because of competition from handheld gaming and the fact that it now competes with Atlasia. Deregistration was not legal for a long time and even after it was, it used far more rarely than now. Haven't you considered the possibility that, understanding your point about mutual support and the like, that in effect people don't want to be marshaled like SS jackboots in a game that is meant to be fun and is based on voluntary participation anymore. I honestly don't think people have the stomach for the days of 2013, which you so glowingly recall, much less the chaos of fall 2009. As you so often seek to remind me, it is 2017.


Yes it can go too far, but the remember this Adam. You conveniently forget that Labor uber alles wrecked the Party as well. When they they insisted on making a well established to be unfit partisan hack as "Speaker/Administrator" of the Senate. This crippled a Labor administration in its infancy and helped turn what should have been one of the best Presidents Labor ever elected (DemPGH) into a disaster. But that didn't matter, as long as the guy with the job, had an L after there name, it didn't matter.

And you mention "accepting that you are not 100% of the puzzle", that didn't happen either. It is like the promised thing you get sold from a charlatan, but he never delivers and yet you are expected to deliver without fail in the name of the party. People with differing opinions were expected to shut up and sit down,  and better qualified candidates from within the party had to pass it on. And they all had to line up every two months and cast a vote to wreck the Senate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@Windjammer
Keep in mind Windjammer, that economic centrism in the Federalist Party is nothing new. I have been been to the left of most of the Feds on many economic issues for a long time. That is because I am dirt poor and know what it is like to struggle. For a long while I foolishly snowed myself that the economic philosophy of RL movement conservatives (when combined with a few unorthodox positions like banking regulations, higher wage/EITC) would make it work.

I was wrong though. My positions have not changed much, but my RL approach and rhetoric has considerably. I supported co-ops for a long time, I still do. My philosophy on the economy is to break up concentrations of wealth, and free up competition to thrive both from for-profit and non-profit (depending on the industry) to ensure that people have a choice and are not slaves to a Wall Street fat, just as much as they are not slaves of a Nyman, DC bureaucrat.

Dfw didn't not deliver a message any different than mine in June 2014 when I won a 78% approval vote (odd voting system) endorsement from Labor for Senate, lauding my support for co-ops, a healthcare public option, and the Nixcome (minimum income). His mix of issues was slightly different (more focus on infrastructure for instance), but the overall theme was the same. Dfw simply was more audacious and more effective at communicating those views to voters who shared his goals, regardless of their affiliations.

The simple fact is that Labor has not led on issues in many areas, especially in the House. OneJ to his credit made some significant contributions, but by his own admission he was not an economic policy guy. I introduced glass-steagall and it sat for days until finally I had to arm twist Laborites just to comment on it. That is not to say Laborites aren't doing anything, and there are some leading figures in the Senate where things are different.

I support Glass-Steagall because I don't believe Conservative means being a shill for big banks and continuing irresponsible practices, I believe it means "preserving" Main Street from the wrecking ball of irresponsible behavior, just as much as it means lowering taxes for small business. A progressive can support it because they are a progressive. There several RL Republicans who shockingly have endorsed it.

It is nice for Adam to say vote for Labor, because Labor. But at the end of the day, that is pretty hollowing reasoning to ask someone to vote out a functioning House majority, with a functioning administration, that is delivering Glass Steagal despite its "Fed+Con Majority". If anything Progressives are better off now then under Labor control, because we can actually pass there bills, whereas under Labor control the place ground to a halt.

There is one thing that Adam left out of his lists "Do this or GTFO". An expectation or desire for competence and that is not surprising. Adam doesn't care about policy and the only consequences he cares about is the rest of the party shunning the deviant in the next election. The problem is that if you constantly elect people, speakers/PPTs, in name of Labor Uber alles, and then they disappear or take a two week siesta (while posting 91 times on the forum during that period), leading to nothing getting passed and leading to "threats of secession" and calls for "massive reforms", because the "system failed", why should you expect even Progressives to vote for you, when the end result is stagnation. And don't get me wrong, I like Never and I respect his effort he put into fixing the House rules at the tail end of his term. Hopefully he will change his mind and his third time around will go better.

Seriously though, ask anyone of the recent Laborites who defected to us whether they think the answer is more heavy handedness and more incompetence glossed over in the name of party unity, and I think that you will get the same answer by and large. If Labor thinks more of the same is the answer to there problems, then Labor can only expect more of the same at election time.

And Windjammer, I should have just made this post sooner and saved you the trouble of PMing them all. You got better things to focus on.

[Adam Griffin]

In the Words of Ronald Reagan
Mr Senator North Carolina Yankee, PPT
There you go Again

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

In the Words of Ronald Reagan
Mr Senator North Carolina Yankee, PPT
There you go Again

Sure thing Adam "I want to turn the Middle East into a Sheet of Glass" Griffin!


Wasn't going to do this, but since you brought out the heavy artillery, why not.  

[windjammer]

@Windjammer
Keep in mind Windjammer, that economic centrism in the Federalist Party is nothing new. I have been been to the left of most of the Feds on many economic issues for a long time. That is because I am dirt poor and know what it is like to struggle. For a long while I foolishly snowed myself that the economic philosophy of RL movement conservatives (when combined with a few unorthodox positions like banking regulations, higher wage/EITC) would make it work.

I was wrong though. My positions have not changed much, but my RL approach and rhetoric has considerably. I supported co-ops for a long time, I still do. My philosophy on the economy is to break up concentrations of wealth, and free up competition to thrive both from for-profit and non-profit (depending on the industry) to ensure that people have a choice and are not slaves to a Wall Street fat, just as much as they are not slaves of a Nyman, DC bureaucrat.

Dfw didn't not deliver a message any different than mine in June 2014 when I won a 78% approval vote (odd voting system) endorsement from Labor for Senate, lauding my support for co-ops, a healthcare public option, and the Nixcome (minimum income). His mix of issues was slightly different (more focus on infrastructure for instance), but the overall theme was the same. Dfw simply was more audacious and more effective at communicating those views to voters who shared his goals, regardless of their affiliations.

The simple fact is that Labor has not led on issues in many areas, especially in the House. OneJ to his credit made some significant contributions, but by his own admission he was not an economic policy guy. I introduced glass-steagall and it sat for days until finally I had to arm twist Laborites just to comment on it. That is not to say Laborites aren't doing anything, and there are some leading figures in the Senate where things are different.

I support Glass-Steagall because I don't believe Conservative means being a shill for big banks and continuing irresponsible practices, I believe it means "preserving" Main Street from the wrecking ball of irresponsible behavior, just as much as it means lowering taxes for small business. A progressive can support it because they are a progressive. There several RL Republicans who shockingly have endorsed it.

It is nice for Adam to say vote for Labor, because Labor. But at the end of the day, that is pretty hollowing reasoning to ask someone to vote out a functioning House majority, with a functioning administration, that is delivering Glass Steagal despite its "Fed+Con Majority". If anything Progressives are better off now then under Labor control, because we can actually pass there bills, whereas under Labor control the place ground to a halt.

There is one thing that Adam left out of his lists "Do this or GTFO". An expectation or desire for competence and that is not surprising. Adam doesn't care about policy and the only consequences he cares about is the rest of the party shunning the deviant in the next election. The problem is that if you constantly elect people, speakers/PPTs, in name of Labor Uber alles, and then they disappear or take a two week siesta (while posting 91 times on the forum during that period), leading to nothing getting passed and leading to "threats of secession" and calls for "massive reforms", because the "system failed", why should you expect even Progressives to vote for you, when the end result is stagnation. And don't get me wrong, I like Never and I respect his effort he put into fixing the House rules at the tail end of his term. Hopefully he will change his mind and his third time around will go better.

Seriously though, ask anyone of the recent Laborites who defected to us whether they think the answer is more heavy handedness and more incompetence glossed over in the name of party unity, and I think that you will get the same answer by and large. If Labor thinks more of the same is the answer to there problems, then Labor can only expect more of the same at election time.

And Windjammer, I should have just made this post sooner and saved you the trouble of PMing them all. You got better things to focus on.

I don't really know about the current actvity of Labor members as I just woke up not a long time ago. But seriously, is your point "the federalists are more active than the laborites" lol?

Do you remember that your presidential candidate, after having forced to resign in disagrace in the Mideast for gross inactivity, became Secretary of State and was forced to resign during the presidential because the senators were going to impeach him because he didn"t do anything for at least a month?

Regarding your other points, well fine maybe the feds have some members who aren't rightwing as their republican counterparts. But are you seriousy going to say that Sanders progressives should feel welcome in the Fed party lol?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

@Windjammer
Keep in mind Windjammer, that economic centrism in the Federalist Party is nothing new. I have been been to the left of most of the Feds on many economic issues for a long time. That is because I am dirt poor and know what it is like to struggle. For a long while I foolishly snowed myself that the economic philosophy of RL movement conservatives (when combined with a few unorthodox positions like banking regulations, higher wage/EITC) would make it work.

I was wrong though. My positions have not changed much, but my RL approach and rhetoric has considerably. I supported co-ops for a long time, I still do. My philosophy on the economy is to break up concentrations of wealth, and free up competition to thrive both from for-profit and non-profit (depending on the industry) to ensure that people have a choice and are not slaves to a Wall Street fat, just as much as they are not slaves of a Nyman, DC bureaucrat.

Dfw didn't not deliver a message any different than mine in June 2014 when I won a 78% approval vote (odd voting system) endorsement from Labor for Senate, lauding my support for co-ops, a healthcare public option, and the Nixcome (minimum income). His mix of issues was slightly different (more focus on infrastructure for instance), but the overall theme was the same. Dfw simply was more audacious and more effective at communicating those views to voters who shared his goals, regardless of their affiliations.

The simple fact is that Labor has not led on issues in many areas, especially in the House. OneJ to his credit made some significant contributions, but by his own admission he was not an economic policy guy. I introduced glass-steagall and it sat for days until finally I had to arm twist Laborites just to comment on it. That is not to say Laborites aren't doing anything, and there are some leading figures in the Senate where things are different.

I support Glass-Steagall because I don't believe Conservative means being a shill for big banks and continuing irresponsible practices, I believe it means "preserving" Main Street from the wrecking ball of irresponsible behavior, just as much as it means lowering taxes for small business. A progressive can support it because they are a progressive. There several RL Republicans who shockingly have endorsed it.

It is nice for Adam to say vote for Labor, because Labor. But at the end of the day, that is pretty hollowing reasoning to ask someone to vote out a functioning House majority, with a functioning administration, that is delivering Glass Steagal despite its "Fed+Con Majority". If anything Progressives are better off now then under Labor control, because we can actually pass there bills, whereas under Labor control the place ground to a halt.

There is one thing that Adam left out of his lists "Do this or GTFO". An expectation or desire for competence and that is not surprising. Adam doesn't care about policy and the only consequences he cares about is the rest of the party shunning the deviant in the next election. The problem is that if you constantly elect people, speakers/PPTs, in name of Labor Uber alles, and then they disappear or take a two week siesta (while posting 91 times on the forum during that period), leading to nothing getting passed and leading to "threats of secession" and calls for "massive reforms", because the "system failed", why should you expect even Progressives to vote for you, when the end result is stagnation. And don't get me wrong, I like Never and I respect his effort he put into fixing the House rules at the tail end of his term. Hopefully he will change his mind and his third time around will go better.

Seriously though, ask anyone of the recent Laborites who defected to us whether they think the answer is more heavy handedness and more incompetence glossed over in the name of party unity, and I think that you will get the same answer by and large. If Labor thinks more of the same is the answer to there problems, then Labor can only expect more of the same at election time.

And Windjammer, I should have just made this post sooner and saved you the trouble of PMing them all. You got better things to focus on.

I don't really know about the current actvity of Labor members as I just woke up not a long time ago. But seriously, is your point "the federalists are more active than the laborites" lol?

Do you remember that your presidential candidate, after having forced to resign in disagrace in the Mideast for gross inactivity, became Secretary of State and was forced to resign during the presidential because the senators were going to impeach him because he didn"t do anything for at least a month?

Regarding your other points, well fine maybe the feds have some members who aren't rightwing as their republican counterparts. But are you seriousy going to say that Sanders progressives should feel welcome in the Fed party lol?

No Jambles, that is not my point. Nobody cares whose candidate did what in Feb 2015. They do care that your February 2017 candidate for President allowed Congress to become so completely dysfunctional that people were threatening me with secession when I was President because "nothing was getting done". And that Progressives have no desire to risk putting that dysfunction back in charge when the present House passed Glass-Steagall with just 1 nay vote, two infrastructure bills, and many other things. My point is before you start thinking about restoring the glory days of Old Labor thuggery, that you consider what you are trying to force people to vote for and demand at least some level of competence and activity.

some members huh? You make it sound like Dfw and I are some random back benchers or something. You aren't accounting for JoMCar, Goldwater, fhtagn, PiT, Leinad, until last night Ted (RIP ), Pericles, sbane, Miles, Sanchez, vosem and many others who disagree with some substantial portions of the RL GOP dogma and platform. A substantial number, including most of its most prominent officials, is "some members" .

If they want to end the war on drugs and get addicts treatment instead of jail time, if they want to avoid unnecessary foreign wars, if they want see infrastructure get done, if they want to see tougher banking laws passed, if they want to see healthcare get done and done right (Kudos to Scott by the way, for being a Laborite who cares about issues), if they want to protect small business from Wall Street and gov't excess, if they want to break up monopolistic entities to restore choice to the people, if they want a party that believes in equality and most importantly, "A More Welcoming Atlasia", then yes I think they fit in quite nicely.

[windjammer]

@Windjammer
Keep in mind Windjammer, that economic centrism in the Federalist Party is nothing new. I have been been to the left of most of the Feds on many economic issues for a long time. That is because I am dirt poor and know what it is like to struggle. For a long while I foolishly snowed myself that the economic philosophy of RL movement conservatives (when combined with a few unorthodox positions like banking regulations, higher wage/EITC) would make it work.

I was wrong though. My positions have not changed much, but my RL approach and rhetoric has considerably. I supported co-ops for a long time, I still do. My philosophy on the economy is to break up concentrations of wealth, and free up competition to thrive both from for-profit and non-profit (depending on the industry) to ensure that people have a choice and are not slaves to a Wall Street fat, just as much as they are not slaves of a Nyman, DC bureaucrat.

Dfw didn't not deliver a message any different than mine in June 2014 when I won a 78% approval vote (odd voting system) endorsement from Labor for Senate, lauding my support for co-ops, a healthcare public option, and the Nixcome (minimum income). His mix of issues was slightly different (more focus on infrastructure for instance), but the overall theme was the same. Dfw simply was more audacious and more effective at communicating those views to voters who shared his goals, regardless of their affiliations.

The simple fact is that Labor has not led on issues in many areas, especially in the House. OneJ to his credit made some significant contributions, but by his own admission he was not an economic policy guy. I introduced glass-steagall and it sat for days until finally I had to arm twist Laborites just to comment on it. That is not to say Laborites aren't doing anything, and there are some leading figures in the Senate where things are different.

I support Glass-Steagall because I don't believe Conservative means being a shill for big banks and continuing irresponsible practices, I believe it means "preserving" Main Street from the wrecking ball of irresponsible behavior, just as much as it means lowering taxes for small business. A progressive can support it because they are a progressive. There several RL Republicans who shockingly have endorsed it.

It is nice for Adam to say vote for Labor, because Labor. But at the end of the day, that is pretty hollowing reasoning to ask someone to vote out a functioning House majority, with a functioning administration, that is delivering Glass Steagal despite its "Fed+Con Majority". If anything Progressives are better off now then under Labor control, because we can actually pass there bills, whereas under Labor control the place ground to a halt.

There is one thing that Adam left out of his lists "Do this or GTFO". An expectation or desire for competence and that is not surprising. Adam doesn't care about policy and the only consequences he cares about is the rest of the party shunning the deviant in the next election. The problem is that if you constantly elect people, speakers/PPTs, in name of Labor Uber alles, and then they disappear or take a two week siesta (while posting 91 times on the forum during that period), leading to nothing getting passed and leading to "threats of secession" and calls for "massive reforms", because the "system failed", why should you expect even Progressives to vote for you, when the end result is stagnation. And don't get me wrong, I like Never and I respect his effort he put into fixing the House rules at the tail end of his term. Hopefully he will change his mind and his third time around will go better.

Seriously though, ask anyone of the recent Laborites who defected to us whether they think the answer is more heavy handedness and more incompetence glossed over in the name of party unity, and I think that you will get the same answer by and large. If Labor thinks more of the same is the answer to there problems, then Labor can only expect more of the same at election time.

And Windjammer, I should have just made this post sooner and saved you the trouble of PMing them all. You got better things to focus on.

I don't really know about the current actvity of Labor members as I just woke up not a long time ago. But seriously, is your point "the federalists are more active than the laborites" lol?

Do you remember that your presidential candidate, after having forced to resign in disagrace in the Mideast for gross inactivity, became Secretary of State and was forced to resign during the presidential because the senators were going to impeach him because he didn"t do anything for at least a month?

Regarding your other points, well fine maybe the feds have some members who aren't rightwing as their republican counterparts. But are you seriousy going to say that Sanders progressives should feel welcome in the Fed party lol?

No Jambles, that is not my point. Nobody cares whose candidate did what in Feb 2015. They do care that your February 2017 candidate for President allowed Congress to become so completely dysfunctional that people were threatening me with secession when I was President because "nothing was getting done". And that Progressives have no desire to risk putting that dysfunction back in charge when the present House passed Glass-Steagall with just 1 nay vote, two infrastructure bills, and many other things. My point is before you start thinking about restoring the glory days of Old Labor thuggery, that you consider what you are trying to force people to vote for and demand at least some level of competence and activity.

some members huh? You make it sound like Dfw and I are some random back benchers or something. You aren't accounting for JoMCar, Goldwater, fhtagn, PiT, Leinad, until last night Ted (RIP ), Pericles, sbane, Miles, Sanchez, vosem and many others who disagree with some substantial portions of the RL GOP dogma and platform. A substantial number, including most of its most prominent officials, is "some members" .

If they want to end the war on drugs and get addicts treatment instead of jail time, if they want to avoid unnecessary foreign wars, if they want see infrastructure get done, if they want to see tougher banking laws passed, if they want to see healthcare get done and done right (Kudos to Scott by the way, for being a Laborite who cares about issues), if they want to protect small business from Wall Street and gov't excess, if they want to break up monopolistic entities to restore choice to the people, if they want a party that believes in equality and most importantly, "A More Welcoming Atlasia", then yes I think they fit in quite nicely.

Still, a progressive Sanderslite has nothing to do in the federalist party. I think this is disingenous to say the contrary. There is a difference between being a moderate and far-leftist.