Talk Elections

Go.

I'd personally say TPP (winning 2 seats in spite of being a smaller party in terms of registration) and Federalists (total disaster).

I'll vote Labor/Federalists.

I don't think that the Federalist Party performed that badly; sure, we lost a seat, but it was only by a two vote margin. It was always going to be tough to elect two Federalists in the at-large elections (that was only managed very narrowly back in August), and this time round we narrowly missed out. No big deal.

If BK's results are accurate I don't see how anyone could vote anything other than a historic victory for both TPP and Labor. Through good vote management Labor got both their candidates comfortably elected with a quota after everyone had written off SWE, and we held two seats against all conceivable odds.

The Federalists are looking more and more like the Liberals every day. I'm shocked no-one's taken the obvious route of founding a right-wing party that isn't an utter joke.

The DRs are also a minor loser for failing to organise a proper campaign and apparently not being aware Deus wasn't running again.

The Party. I know Yankee will disagree,  but I don't see how this is in any way, shape or form a win for the Federalists. Sorry buddy :P

Oakvale and Adam Griffin/Windjammer = wizard kings of electoral math

TPP and Labor won, the Federalists and the D-Rs clearly lost.

In my view the two right-of-center parties are obviously disorganized. The Federalist Party is a mere one-man show. If no one else besides Yankee is willing to lift a finger the party won't be able to survive in the long run.
The level of disorganization among the D-Rs appears even worse but I'm not sure that party ever had a clear power structure in the first place.

I think what you can say with absolute certainty, is that this was a disaster for the Federalists and the D-Rs. For those of us in the left/centre-left bloc to pick up 3(1 more to be confirmed)/5 seats... is just inexplicable.... well it can be explained, but it's still weird.

Cris was one of the strongest candidates the right bloc could possibly put up. JCL did get lucky numbers-wise in August, he did get supported by some pretty inexplicable votes toward the end of voting. So those votes dried up and the right's GOTV was underwhelming, he was probably doomed. The D-Rs problem was that they didn't have a candidate until the last few days and he would have been assisted by Senator Deus actually announcing that he wasn't running, to enable Maxwell to be on the ballot and not require write-ins.

Labor regained its strength and got two candidates up in the first round, which, as the largest party, it should have.

I kind of decided on the whim that I was running. We knew for a while Deus wasn't running, none of us really wanted to go for the seat though.

<3

Clearly it was a great victory for the Transcendental Democrats :)

No one won.
DRs because they blew a seat because of a total absence of party infrastructure.
Federalist lost because of failing to turn their voters.
TPP lost because they believed it was an easy win, I recall oakvale telling me I was an idiot to think labors could get 2 seats and that we should focuse only on swe. If rightwing turnout was a little higher, they would have lost.
And finally Labor lost because one of their candidates didn't campaign at all even if he was in the race for at least 2 MONTHS! Labor winning 2 seats was a miracle.

¡Ni un voto a la derecha!

I have to agree with windjammer.

Counterpoint on behalf of my party:

The real problem for us was your unexpected and impressive coup of recruiting Lief to run as a member of Labor. He was honestly the only candidate who could have realistically won a second seat for y'all, and we didn't see it coming at all. Lief swept the votes of virtually every Labor-TPP swing voter, whose first preferences Polnut and I were counting on. It's a TPP victory, IMO, because our two-candidate strategy worked even though you sabotaged our original master plan so successfully. It's also worth noting most of our campaign team couldn't give our full effort last weekend, due to things like university finals and focusing on Christmas (:P).

Also you shouldn't sell your party short. Regardless of the details, you've now got half of the seats in the Senate (and only need to compromise with us in order to get a veto-proof majority on anything ;D)

I'd say that these are the winners:

Labor is the clear winner in this contest, given that up until last week, we had been reduced to but a vocal minority within the Senate. Now, in spite of everything, we have achieved our pre-Crisis position once again, commanding half of the Senate and allowing us to form a formidable bulwark of opposition against the far-right, warmongering Lumine administration. A victory for all working people and all progressives, to be sure.

And of course, the total losers of this race were the Fedoralists, who continue to be an utter laughing stock of a party.

In the past months the Federalists have -

Lost a safe right-wing seat by failing to respond to strategic registration Loss

Won a Presidential election Win

Lost that President's vacant seat to a minor party Loss

Saw their incumbent Senator lose despite a field including no libertarian and a candidate who literally didn't campaign Loss

This doesn't even include insanity like coming close to replacing the most popular President in a generation with Naso on their ticket.

Well, This is a lesson I have learnt after having watched an episode of Xena the Warrior 10 years ago: in order to fight gods, you have to recruit a god. Both you and polnut are extremely well appreciated on this  forum for obviously well reasons and the only way to fight that was to recruit a God: Llief the wonderful, someone who is deeply beloved on this forum too.
I had noticed he was more and more active in the atlas fantasy board these recent days, so he wasn't difficult at all to recruit.
Lief is again a wonderful guy and him being a member of my party is obviously a splendid new.


Believe it or not, but I wasn't extremely involved during this campaign. I really started to focus 2 days before the deadline by recruiting Lief. And then after, Ii had just sent few messages to make sure Lief got the independent vote. This was really the last day I started to be actively campaigning.  Because, me too I was busy :P.

That's probably because the D-Rs have less than a quarter of the membership of the Federalist Party...

The fact that Federalists won only one senate seat with nearly the same number of members as the Labor party really speaks volumes about their voter turnout system.

What the Federalists need is a blue Griffin.

They've been a remarkable travesty since Hagrid left.

The Federalists have been a one man show for a long time now. I feel bad for Yankee. He's really running the party alone. By the time I finally went back to The Party, which had been calling for me beyond the hills for months, it was literally the two of us communicating and no one else. Losing Hagrid was pretty much their end, but losing tmth(activity wise at least) and ZuWo hurt very much too.

Shouldn't the results have been fairly predictable? Right-wing turnout was low and thus with 6 candidates for 5 seats (write-ins not included) it was likely that the more radical of the Federalist candidates failed to get in and all the others did.
It was close though; had JCL been more moderate I think they would have gotten that second seat.

The problem for the Federalists is what you outlined, "Right wing turnout was low". This is the biggest problem for the current Federalist Party, it's unfortunate that Yankee has to run his party by himself, it must be extremely difficult, and if they had an active core, they could have easily gotten two seats.

()

GriffGraph® showed that the Federalist Party had a turnout of 51%, this is on a fantasy election game on an American-styled political website, that number should be closer to 80%. Labor did fine, 75% of their members voted, The People's Party had a phenomenal turnout, over 95%, and those are the reasons TPP and Labor won two seats each. TPP has very active, high profile people, Labor has the Griffin turnout machine, and the reason the left (if we had to characterize TPP it would be more towards the left of the political spectrum) has seven seats in the Atlasian senate, and it's because of the huge obstacles of inactivity and the nobody stepping up in the Federalist Party.

What's all this rubbish about TPP being a "left-wing" party?

As I said, if you have to characterize TPP, it's more of a leftist party than a right wing party.

It's a centrist party. Easy as that.

Actually...

()

Also, I'm flattered at all the commentary about my "turnout machine" and perceived involvement, but it's really just not the case. While I did contact a few close friends to vote who I thought might not otherwise do so and did try to run the numbers on the final day to see where things were, the real heavy-lifting was done by several others. Perhaps it'd be fair to say that the machine I built in the past was and is still well-oiled and operational, but it takes the work of others now to keep it that way.

I think you have my S score and my E score mixed up, but huh. Interesting.

That I do - fixed.

That is exactly what I was trying to say, I really didn't make that clear. :P

I'm also proud to see The People continue to turnout in drove after all these months. One of the things I did during its first incarnation was ensure we had to as close to 100% turnout as possible, and clearly those in charge now have continued The Party under that goal. Praise be to The People now and forever more.

Amen

The TPP is also quite a small party but yet they managed to get two people elected by running their best guys (that wasn't always the case, see the most recent NE Senate election) and due to excellent GOTV efforts.
I may be wrong, but the fact that no one ran to replace Deus until the announcement of two last-minute write-in-campaigns gave off the impression of a party in disarray. It's an uphill battle to win an at-large Senate seat for a small party like yours but I believe it could have been possible considering the bench of qualified candidates you have to offer.

TPP is also literally a "hall of fame party".

I don't disagree with the idea that we should've had better GOTV, but to say our party is in disarray is just silly and over-dramatic.

TPP also when it comes to turnout benefits from the fact that it's a relatively new party, and so its members are more likely to be active and not need a pm to vote.

Who's this other green dot next to Simfan?

I'm guessing rpryor.

Most likely me.

Checks out

To be fair it's not like the political matrix has a lot of relevance in an Atlasian context. Our platform is fairly centrist (if liberal), which is what counts. Likewise Labor's platform is probably (or at least last I checked) farther left than the PM score would indicate. Do the Feds actually have a platform?

Not that this will endear me to anyone (that's why it's so great to be an Independent :P), but my feeling is that it has always sort of been a one-man show. How well the Federalist Party does just comes down to a combination of the amount of time the "one man" can put in, how frustrated the "one man" becomes, and the raw skill of the "one man." This person hasn't always been me (but it was for a long time), and there have been a few successes here and there that really were rooted in fantastic group efforts, but at the end of the day, getting everyone on the same page and mustering up individuals to actually help is hard. The one man is vital; it all comes down to him. I'm not saying Yankee is ineffectual, but the cards he has been dealt IRL have made it difficult for him to achieve success for the party. Maybe it's time for new leadership, but they've reached the stage where most of the people who could turn things around are too frustrated to do anything about it.

If we're airing everything now, there were sort of four reasons why I left.

1. I was tired of being the "one man."

Even after stepping away from the leadership, it was hard for me to get away from the whole "if you want something done right, do it yourself" thing. Maybe others were capable, but I always felt like the only time the party ever had big successes was when I played a role and got the pieces moving. Sure, we have individuals who've been very successful, but that's no thanks to the "Federalist machine." Lumine and Duke won in spite of their party-ID, not because of it. They won thanks to their own merits.

And if I'm the guy who actually can make it work, why should I attach myself to an organization that only stresses me out and pisses me off? I have good GOTV skills. I can make things happen. If I want to run for office, I'll be fine.

2. It did stress me out.

When you're the one man, it's difficult to separate the party from yourself (or, at least, it was for me). So every criticism of the party was like a wound that only riled me up. I remember the night Griffin posted his bloody coat hanger attack ad. I shouldn't have let it get to me, but f-ck was I pissed. It's not healthy, and I don't wanna deal with this sh-t if I don't have to.

3. The party relies on the support of a few bigoted imbeciles that I often had to molly coddle and sell my soul to for any type of win.

I'm not going to name names because everyone knows what I mean. I'm just tired of supporting these people and trying to balance their personalities, especially when many of them oppose rights for people who are not straight, like me. I don't want my name in with theirs.

4. My views are actually evolving.

I've was hesitant to switch to the green avatar because I do still identify as anti-Democratic, but, again, I'm not the far-right social conservative that people once thought I was. I don't want to tow the party line and I don't want to sit in embarrassed silence as right-wing extremists in the same party as me pass ridiculously misogynistic legislation in the Mideast. I'm done with it.




Anyway, this turned into a giant rant, but leaving the party in silence obviously left some things unanswered. It sucks to see the Federalist Party crumble, but it's a terrible beast of a thing. Being on the right in this game sucks, but being a member of the organized right is even worse. There are many reasons for its lack of success, and I don't think they'll ever be addressed. So if it's going to be a laughing stock election after election, with only Yankee coming out to defend it in another one of his incomprehensible grandpa speeches, I just can't deal. And whether it's the Whig Party, the Federalist Party, or some other big-tent right-wing group, the same problems will always exist. The first step is getting away from even needing "one man" and instead have it actually be a team, but that just doesn't happen.

So all I can say is good luck. When you run people who are decent, I may even vote for ya. Sorry to be so blunt here, but it honestly is kind of personal for me.

It endears you to me, because now I can speak publically without releasing private information you would have preferred be kept private. :P

To be perfectly honest, I never felt any attachement to the Federalist Party and only became interested in leading it in late 2013 (Tmth running gave me a few months reprieve) when I feared it would collapse in my absence and what the lack of a Conservative PArty of some size would mean for the game. I was never that involved with the IB (though I approved of its purpose and thus why I picked it over the Whigs and stayed there until the merger), I opposed dissolution and the merger of the IB and the Whigs. Adding to that, there was always distance between us because I glory in a forcibly demolished Party you never belonged to and thus felt left out of that history whenever I brought it up (I would assume the grandpa speak refers to this). Likewise, this reaction on your part frustrated me, because I did it to inform and provide guidance and it seemed like such was being naively resisted on false assumptions (speaking largely of the Pacific here). We saw this play out in August of 2013. We also parted ways on Judicial Term Limits, which was probably one of my biggest issues at that point and the Federalists largely going in on that seemed mind boggling.



I did have a team in the RPP. I never would have succeeded in the RPP without Duke and Tmth and a number of other people. If the Federalists are just so that such can never eventually be the case here, then yes it will be time for me to step aside as well because I will never be that one man. I never was and never will be.

That said, the sentiment that things never change and will always be the same is a driving force behind the lack of participation by conservatives. After so many years, they conclude their is not chance of ever getting their way and then you have to fight gravity to get them to turn out at numbers just barely above par to stay even, more or less get ahead. This lack of turnout creates a self-fullfilling prophesy of failure that drives more disinterest and more lack of participation. You then have to fight gravy to get the necessary turnout.

We spent weeks working on amending it this past summer.

The RPP DID have a team in place, and that's the reason it was able to be successful for so long despite its shortcomings during Presidential elections. The same team led the party for nearly its entire existence, with the two major changes coming when I took it over and then Yankee. But neither of us were new members, and most of its members were active and played the game for a long time.

The Federalists don't compare to the RPP at all really. The RPP was home to me and only The Party has rivaled that home since. Most know I never felt at home in the Federalist Party, and that wasn't really the fault of anyone, it just lacked that intangible that is needed to feel like you belong. The Party has it. The RPP had it. The Federalists did not, and that was before the unfortunate events of my Presidency occurred.

I admire Yankee's persistence to build the Federalists into SOMETHING, but I don't feel like they are anything. There are too many competing interests, and I learned that early into my first term as President. I admittedly did not do all I could to "reach out" to the members, but when I did attempt it, I discovered that what one person wanted was what another couldn't stand, so I just did what I always do and just decided to do things how I wanted them done and let results speak for themselves. That almost lost me a primary to Naso, but I have no regrets with how I managed things.

With some thought,
The current biggest problem for the right isn't because this forum is full of leftists, there are many "moderate" democrats who has a moderate economic score who could be attracted by a center-rightwinger, Cris, who would have defeated Bacon King if Riley or Chairmansanchez would have voted for him, just shows the right can win with some "infrastructure", even against the most popular leftists.

I believe they have currently 2 big problems:
- obviously the lack of "party" infrastructure
- and the other is the total lack of "unity" among the right. DRs and Feds seem to fight much more each other than with the leftwing parties (TPP and Labor). Unity among them is much more difficult between Feds and DR because obviously, socons like TJ and pro incest pro polygamy libertarians like Deus obviously don't get along, but I believe there is actually no effort of unity between the 2 factions. Some people would manage to appeal to both these factions. The right will never win unless the left would have totally been a disaster before (that explains the lumine victory) or unless they manage to unite the socons, the libertarians and the moderates.

I think the Feds and D-R's are different parties for a reason, because a general "right-wing" party doesn't really work. There will always be that split. That being said, I believe the right person can unite both of those parties in a Presidential election, a fiscal conservative who doesn't offend socons or libertarian types (aka someone who is silent on those marriage issues while at the same time pro-gay marriage and maybe pro choice). There are few like that, but someone exists, for sure.

For example, I would try to rally D-R's behind a Hagrid for President candidacy if he became an active member of the game again.

Hagrid would seem like an excellent candidate to unite D-R's and Federalists indeed. But reading his comments on the previous page ('right-wing extremists','bigoted imbeciles') I am not sure he's still interested in being a candidate of the right. ;)

That does seem to be the case, I did not read that page.

There was a time when I wanted to be president, but obviously that ship has sailed.

Re: my comments on the last page, I do want to clarify that my charged language was not directed to social conservatives in general, but to the two real nutbars who always had some issue I needed to dance around. One being Ben Kenobi, who is fortunately no longer with us.

The issue Windjammer is touching on is another major reason why the Right has problems outside the fact that the main right-wing party is a literal joke - organising libertarians is like herding cats. You could be comfortably winning an election with the generic Right candidate and then a bunch of the libertarians will go off en masse and vote for Poirot or something. You can see this clearly in the Mideast Senate race, when the libertarians refused (er, understandably enough but you know) to vote for Cassius, meaning that Windjammer would have won even without his zombie armada. That says shocking things about the state of the right.

(Oh, and I'd vote for Hagrid too, if he ever came back. RIP, FF. :'( )

Oh and oakvale, I would have never tried to make this region a Labor region if the great member of your party, Simfan, didn't have moved so many rightwingers from the Midwest and the Mideast to the Pacific.
I know everyone knows that Simfan not only made TNF safe, he as well created an opportunity for the left to win in the most socially conservative region. I would have never tried to turn this region if Keaton, Zuwo, enderman and some others hadn't moved.

I cannot thank him enough, especially at the same time you wanted absolutely Labor to collapse, finally they gained a seat :D.

And I almost forgot,
The last NE senate race was indeed hilarious. Oakvale basically recruited a joke candidate whereas it was definitely for them, a candidate who basically imploded during the campaign after having been expelled from the NE assembly, forcing him to sink his campaign at the end of the campaign, you know, the last TPP voter voting for bore ;).

Yes, that's absolutely true and I've said so on many occasions.

e: No one 'recruited' Matt to do anything. The less said about the substance of the post the better.

I can't speak for the other guys you mentioned but Simfan had nothing to do with my decision to move to the Pacific. Ever since I became an independent I have been completely out of the loop regarding party politics, partisan schemes and ploys and I enjoy that a lot.
I moved to the Pacific simply because it's fun to try something new every once in a while.

Oooops, so not you. But I know he moved some people here, making TNF safe and the Mideast competitive :P.

The fact is libertarians are not going to just follow the right-wing orthodoxy and nor should they.

Based on my understanding of Northeast politics, there's only one person who would have certainly ousted Bore, and that individual ended up voting for him. Matt, who is very popular personally, was actually one of the strongest challengers available.

Yes, except the right has more reason to trust bore than Matt at this point.

See: June 2013. And before anyone says "well sirnick wasn't a right-winger" or "dallasfan is disliked by a key contingent on the right" or "they both supported legalized pornography for kids and incest", remember that this was the ticket that the bulk of the right did prematurely decide to rally around, as well as forgoing their own attempt at running a ticket. Windjammer had a field day with that decision - no wonder sirnick is still so bitter about things! Of course, this decision by the Right was likely made due to the same dynamic as many others: just to try to stick it to Labor. Unfortunately for them and as I've always said, making the game about that dynamic usually rewards the Left and hurts the Right in the long-run.

---

Though it'd help if the Right would actually run someone who fits the mold of what you describe. Between Duke, Sirnick and Lumine, it's no wonder that the broader group can't stick together. If anything, it seems like the "Right" in recent elections has pandered more to the libertarian elements (if only based on those three choices listed prior), and has taken the socon element for granted. I think it's hilarious that in this game, the DLC-types and the communists can stick together more so than the libertarians and the socons; the opposite of the real world (thought this isn't always true, as a lot of the fake leftists have sided with ridiculous right-wing candidates in the past if only to spite Labor). It also wasn't necessarily true when I arrived or during the Lib-Lab struggle of 2013.

The Right is bitter about years upon years of losing, and has failed to embrace the fact that we've been in a post-JCP dynamic for going on three years now. As such, they seem to keep buying into the premise of running candidates that aren't effectively loyal to their core constituents, and in the process, create new divisions that otherwise shouldn't be there. By trying to sell-out and create a pathway to victory, they create as many net losses for themselves as they have patched up. Sometimes, you just have to say "fyck all" to the folks who are causing trouble; in a lot of cases, they ultimately fall into line when shunned, anyway.

The left-right-center dynamic in terms of registration seems to be at or near record-highs in terms of the percentage of people who are right-wingers in the game ("Left" outnumbers "Right" by 10 voters, with 25 or so real "Centrist" voters). A victory for the Right involves holding their base and winning 70% or so of the centrists, which isn't so difficult-sounding when you consider the electoral situations they've been in in the past. As I've said for the longest, however, I'm fully confident that the Right will just continue to play the victim card and keep on losing, though.

Griffin, you seem to subscribe to the idea that the core constituency of the right is social conservatives. It's just not true. That way of thinking may work for the left where, in fact, most people do believe in all the same things and the tent can be smaller, but the thing is, the right doesn't have just one base. A winning right-wing candidate needs the so-cons, the libertarians, the ruthless free-market capitalists, the soft conservatives, the centrists, and a number of left-leaning moderates. That's hard to do, and frankly the only reason it's been able to happen is either because we've run unique candidates who have a personality cult around them (sorry Duke) or because Labor has made itself unelectable.

Now, in a way, I appreciate that Labor has done that, because it means the game is more competitive. They can pander to their most extreme elements and still have 50/50 odds to win. But let's not pretend the same strategy can translate to the right. Labor has a lot more wiggle room to flirt with that line of unelectability. I know Griffin thinks it's more admirable to "win with purpose," but you must understand that just winning for the right is a big enough challenge on its own. And because all of the groups I mentioned are vital to a winning right-wing candidacy, I strongly disagree that catering to the social conservatives will get the party anywhere. The right does that, and it loses all the moderates it worked hard to win over. Unfortunately for the people on the far right, they occupy a fringe position. They know it. If they want to win election to the senate or anything else, they need support from conservatives to their left. And the only way they're going to get it is if they support the larger agenda of the "Atlasian right." So that's what happens: Moderates represent the right and win, with the support of all the core groups they need, including so-cons. Social conservatives run for president and they lose, because the moderates are not as stuck for support and can afford to go shopping for other candidates; they'll always be safe.

And that's just the game.

Dude,
When you were all in the federalist party: you managed to have: an almost successful libertarian ticket, a Mideast Senator (Spiral), at large senators (Matt, Goldwater, Maxwell, and tmthforu in some extent), candidates for the NE senate race (Matt) etc etc.
Now, after the split, what do you have? N-O-T-H-I-N-G


You speak like if the fed party was the atlasian version of the republican party. That's not the case, even the socons (DC, JCL) are quite libertarian.

Well then we will all keep on losing, until that changes.

Another aspect of the difficulty of uniting the Roght is the fundamental "tone" of the ideology. Conservatism is about the preservation and defense of the best of our current society. Conservatives are fighting not to give ground on the best and will accept reform of the worst. It is an ideology that operates within the confines of existing institutions.

Libertarianism, on the other hand, has this overriding belief that they are waging a war of epic proportion to end an unjust system. The ideology, while still calling for free markets, is by and large an attack on existing institutions. The great, monolithic war being waged by libertarians is the same reason Ron Paul does so well while never winning. They don't have a problem "throwing away" a ballot,

The dysfunction on the Right, to me, displays the irrelevance of game reform. This game works well when there are strong ideological counterweights. Can you imagine 10 or so social conservatives registering in the Northeast? That would be extremely fun. American Conservativism seems to be dramatically underrepresented, which I think causes a lot of the breakdown we see across the whole game.

Aren't you in "The People's Party"? the "great centrists"? Why do you care what happens to "The Right"?

And that was an awful period of time, and ended up destroying the Federalist Party as we knew it then. That coalition of votes wasn't going to last whether i had continued at the helm or not.

And the Federalist Party isn't like the Republican Party now. Quite the opposite - It doesn't really stand for anything. I saw one of the people in the party creating a "Main Street Project" and my thoughts were really "Besides JCL, who really is a conservative that needs distancing from?". The game is much more fun with hard ideological components, and I think the game is better with a right wing that CAN come together but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.

How can you describe that as "awful"?

Well, I mean, the Matt/Maxwell ticket was a massive success, no doubt, but the Party we ran didn't really get anything accomplished despite electoral success.

I wouldn't say that was your fault, or the fault of the fed party. Labor did have 6 seats during this period, that would be like blaming lumine for not signing conservative bills, he doesn't have a majority, so he can't do nothing.

You're being willfully ignorant here. After the Democratic-Republican Party began in earnest (circa October or so) we managed to elect: a Governor in the Northeast, a Governor in the Mideast, headed the bottom half of a presidential ticket that nearly won, won an At-Large Special Election (!), and elected a Governor of the IDS - all while never exceeding 15 members (somebody correct me of I'm wrong here.) Admittedly the Democatic-Republican Party has had a bit of a slump then but this has more to do with a dearth of activity than anything else.


Reported for trolling. Theocratic revanchism and revoking the right to abortion is far more anti-libertarian than whatever social program Labor might concoct.


Simfan.mp3: http://youtu.be/SSCzDykng4g?t=52s

The Pro-Life position is a very libertarian thing. How can you say denying abortion is an anti-libertarian belief? Life is the greatest right we all have and the taking of the life of the "most innocent" among us is a great injustice. Theocratic revanchist I am not. The non-aggression axiom most definitely applies.

The Non Aggression Principle ^TM is Bargain Bin libertarianism at best. (http://reason.com/archives/2014/04/20/a-libertarian-society-owes-itself-more-t)

I didn't know you had to pro-choice to be a libertarian in Atlasia. If I recall correctly at least two prominent D-R's are openly pro-life ...