Temporary Headquarters of the Labor Party (Leadership election)

[windjammer]

I'm running for Chair.

[windjammer]

I mean,
I didn't give a crap anymore about this game as I am so busy. It appears that Labor is in crisis right now, so I propose my services until the crisis ends.

Even if I never was elected chairman/vice chairman, I was the de facto leader of Labor with Griffin during 2014-2015 period. I have experience with winning tough battles most notably the 2014 June presidential election where Labor won against every other ticket, and the 2014 October Mideast Senate election where I was the first leftwinger winning in the Mideast.

So, I'm proposing my experience to rebrand this party, a la Pit making a comeback two years ago when Yankee lost his Southern seat.


It is important that the two coalition parties system remain, if one of the sides collapses, the game risks to crash. The game almost crashed when the federalists were in crisis 2 years ago, and it would definitely crash if there isn't a viable opposition from the left.

[windjammer]

I mean,
I understand you are all pissed because Labor has lost.

But still, it's important to move on and focus on future.

[windjammer]

So who is running and who isn't lol

[windjammer]

I think I will go to sleep I don't understand anything.


But seriously, who isis really running ?

[windjammer]

i have a few questions for everyone running to be chair

1. Considering the recent failure of the party and, can you describe your broad strategy to bring the party back together and start winning national elections again?  Its probably best to focus on the latter, since thats both the primary point of a mass party and your primary job in your position.

2.  You're running to chair a party that claims to be a socialist party.  Could you therefore describe what socialism means to you?

1)
Well, it seems to me that the biggest problem Labor is facing is that many elected officeholders left recently the party, which means this party is in a shortage of officeholders, and if that doesn't change, this party is going to die.
When I was running labor with Griffin 2 years ago, I was fairly good at recruiting people. I literally successfully invaded the most rightwing region in the game at this time (Mideast), transforming it into a safe Labor region. Many current players have been recruited by me, I'm thinking of for example Blair and Clyde.

So my main priority is to recruit new members to this party, and as well candidates for local and national offices. The presidential election isn't a priority yet as it is in four months, but of course it's going be an important battle.

Labor lost this presidential election not because the candidates didn't campaign as Clyde indeed sent many PMs, but more because of a lack of strategy and coordination. If elected chairman, I would obviously pledge assistance to any labor candidates the party would nominate, and to help them win. I know how to win tough races as for example 3 years ago I won a presidential election against someone who was endorsed by literally every party but labor.

2.
Regarding your second point,
In order to be strong, the Labor party needs to be a center-left to far-left party, so at the same time center-left liberals and "socialists" need to feel at home in this party. If the center-left liberals don't support labor, we lose because of a lack of majority, and if the "socialists" go third party or bust, well, we would lack votes as well and a divided left is a weak left.
I don't think the chair of Labor should matter more than the members of this party individually. The Chair has the role of a strategist, an administrator, not a ideologue. The Labor party platform must be made by all the current members.

But I believe some want  to know what my ideology is. Well, I guess the best to describe it is to describe what I sponsored/passed as Local Representative/Senator/Governor:
- I eliminated the most regressive tax: the sales tax that was hurting the poors the most. I eliminated as well the income tax on the poorest.
- In the Midwest, I made college tuition free.
- I passed some pro environment bills: tax credit for the development of renewable energy,...
-Families got as well some help in term of child allowance with me, important to make sure anyone can afford starting a new family.

Etc etc
I have serious leftwing credentials,  but again if elected chair I don't plan to influence that much on the platform/ideology of the Labor Party, as I believe it's something everyone should equally contribute.

[windjammer]

I literally successfully invaded the most rightwing region in the game at this time (Mideast), transforming it into a safe Labor region.

Lock him up!

Although to be honest, that was made possible by 2 things:
-the destruction of the Zuwo machine by tmthforu
- the total incompetence of Riley Keaton as governor who really stroke the decisive blow to the right in this region.

[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!)

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[windjammer]

People don't vote based on ideological veneers, they vote based on individual issues that form that sum total of those ideologies and who is best to deliver for them at any given time.


Also, I have long since established that 1) Politics is not linear, it is 3-Dimensional and 2) I don't give a damn about lazy political analysis and its poorly conceived "rules" for who must side with who. People are people, not herds of sheep.


You don't see me demanding the 11 Feds back who made you Vice President, Windjammer.

These 11 Feds backed me because they were ideologically closer to me than the guy who legalized polygamy and incest. Not because I made some "Nice guys FF" campaign

[windjammer]

1) Windjammer
2) Tim

[windjammer]

Thank you all.

So it's time to work!

[windjammer]

Obviously, it is important to not do that all alone.

So I hereby appoint 3 regional coordinators:
-Truman for Fremont
-Scott for Lincoln
-Peebs for South

I intend to work closely with them for election stuff, recruitment in their region etc etc.

If anyone want to be involved in party GOVT operation in the future, please PM me. I don't plan to be chair for a long time so I want to transmit my knowledge of this game for party GOVT operation before I go back to retirement again. Biggest mistake Griffin and I made was to have run the party for 2 years by being a duo, and not having tried to incorporate more members in the leadership who would have then succeeded us, a mistake I don't plan to make again.

[windjammer]

There is a vacancy in the House and I must appoint someone. So anyone interested please let me know by PM.
WJ

[windjammer]

How would the party feel about expanding the Congressional caucus so that senators have a role in it as well?  The left has had a de facto majority in the Senate for some time now and I'm running for PPT in the next session.  I think it would be appropriate for us to elect party leadership for Senate the same way we do for House.

Honestly,
You all do whatever you want, this kind of things is so irrelevant anyway.

[windjammer]

How would the party feel about expanding the Congressional caucus so that senators have a role in it as well?  The left has had a de facto majority in the Senate for some time now and I'm running for PPT in the next session.  I think it would be appropriate for us to elect party leadership for Senate the same way we do for House.

Honestly,
You all do whatever you want, this kind of things is so irrelevant anyway.

For some reason, I picture an abusive, alcoholic father saying that to his son after he came home from school and wanted to show off his art class project.

I don't even drink alcohol at all .

[windjammer]

For all the stuff regarding congressional caucus or whatever, I delegate my power (if I have one) to Truman.

[windjammer]

I heereby appoint illiniwek to the House of Representatives.