Survey Atlasia: February At-Large Senate Special Election

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Napoleon's term in the Senate was marked by constant conflict and terrible ideas.  He put the SoEA on ignore, which hampered his ability to introduce legislation.  He has been a terrible President who constantly is fighting with the Senate and resorts to personal attacks.  He does not deserve to return to the Senate.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Napoleon's term in the Senate was marked by constant conflict and terrible ideas.  He put the SoEA on ignore, which hampered his ability to introduce legislation.

Not just ignoring the SoEA, but proposing a repeal of the GM powers given to the SoEA and SoIA. When this proposal came to the floor, it sat there for a week as the Senate waited for him to advocate for it. He didn't, and then he voted to defeat the bill he proposed and then deliberately ignored requests for him to defend.

[Napoleon]

Napoleon's term in the Senate was marked by constant conflict and terrible ideas.  He put the SoEA on ignore, which hampered his ability to introduce legislation.  He has been a terrible President who constantly is fighting with the Senate and resorts to personal attacks.  He does not deserve to return to the Senate.

I put you on ignore because you were harassing me. That had nothing to do with my Senate duties. I even introduced the foreign policy review on your behalf.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I put you on ignore because you were harassing me. That had nothing to do with my Senate duties. I even introduced the foreign policy review on your behalf.

In that same debate you claimed you only read the first post of the review because you had me on Ignore.  And as for me "harassing" you, I find it amusing you even make such a ridiculous claim.

[Napoleon]

It's rather ridiculous that we have to rehash these arguments again, Mr. SoEA who posted nothing for over a month and Mr. PPT who disappeared completely and couldn't finish out his term. We all make mistakes- big deal. While I wouldn't find it a particularly good use of my time, I could point out everything each of you has done wrong at some point or another. Why? How would doing that make the game more fun, the experience better? For most of us, this game isn't life or death serious.

Napoleon getting any endorsements, especially from actually good and serious people like yourself, is an outright joke.

I'm serious, and I'm a good person. Why wouldn't other good and serious people support me?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

38% isn't "obscene". It's disappointing, yes. It's not the high point of my time here. Oh f**king well. I see nothing wrong with moving on and making sure it doesn't happen again. By the way, you don't have to pretend I'm not President, you can vote me into the Senate and have a new one. Genius!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I haven't trolled the Senate. I've had disagreements, but I've also been more than willing to explain the reasoning behind it. I also didn't troll my own convention, you creep. I've put quite an effort into sustaining that party and if I don't have the time to rewrite an entire set of bylaws in a few hours, then I don't have the damn time. Sorry I don't postpone my entire life to rewrite bylaws for a fictional political party. I guess that makes me a troll.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I disagree with this, so it's apparently not as undeniable as you may suggest. And I'd like to think the endorsements I have received (which I'm very grateful for) can back me up on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're right, I don't. Fezzy, Griffin, and Goldwater don't either. It's a game we play for fun. No one deserves anything, no one is entitled to anything, and if you actually think otherwise there is something way wrong with you and I'm not qualified to diagnose it. The only person who will deserve the seat is the person voted into it by the people who play this game. You don't deserve the presidency. Why shouldn't we just cancel the election and give it to Winfield? He deserves it.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The overwhelming majority of my endorsements aren't even from Liberals. Can you, for once, present your argument, as terrible as it may be, in an intellectually honest fashion?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, it's called Atlasia. We have regions instead of states, there's only three Justices on the Supreme Court, and our elections last seventy-two hours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And a couple months before that, I had extremely high approvals and got reelected with over 60% of the vote. Things change and fluctuate. Barnes had a 72% approval rating when he resigned. For no reason at all other than the fact that he was personable and non-controversial.

Yeah, the start of my second term got sidetracked. Hurricane Sandy struck. There was an election. The forum got shut down for days. The Senate stopped operating on a normal schedule. I had things come up in my personal life. Senators and Cabinet officials kept resigning or disappearing. Could I have handled some of it better? Certainly. Have I learned from my mistakes? I believe so. Should the voters trust me? That's up to them, but I've said what I hope to do in office, why I'm running, and what I have to offer.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I'm not going to get drawn into a petty back and forth, I'm just going to say that you have a greater duty right now as President you should have the decency to serve out before going to something else, and that there should be consequences to doing a bad job, otherwise this game will never improve. A wacky campaign is interesting, but it's the equivalent of a drunken night of fun before people wake up to a 4-month long regretful hangover.

If people don't care about doing a good job, and intend to vote for you regardless of your performance, that is an acceptable rationale, but those people should be honest about that, and stop pretending they care about this game getting better if that is the case. We can't always have our cake and eat it too. I've been around for too many cycles where people elect someone, and then spend months whining about a person that they were so hyped about to begin with, to be able to stomach it again.

[Goldwater]

I will be giving myself first preference, but I'm undecided on my other preferences.

[Napoleon]

I'm not going to get drawn into a petty back and forth,

Of course you're not. You've always shied away from your own attacks once you can't back them up. We're used to that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why should I have to serve out? We have a Vice President for a reason. He and I both were elected.
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So we improve the game by electing a failed PPT who had to resign his Senate seat? Or, was your idea of consequences giving Barnes a second preference, knowing what he had done in about every office he was given?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Get over yourself.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

You appointed Nathan.  Only 10 people ever voted on him being Vice President.

[Talleyrand]

You appointed Nathan.  Only 10 people ever voted on him being Vice President.

Actually 113 people did, Senator Ben.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=149059.msg3478543#msg3478543

Anyway, my first preference will be Fezzy. Not sure about the others though.

[Napoleon]

By the way, it would be literally impossible for you to be "drawn into" something you started, Marokai.

You appointed Nathan.  Only 10 people ever voted on him being Vice President.

try again? NAPOLEON and NATHAN 65 (Scott, Speed of Sound, tmthforu, Marokai Blue, wolfentoad, Ebowed, Fritz, smoltchanov, AndrewCT, benconstine, OIDB, angus, Nathan, Tender Branson, sbane, Ogre Mage, Clinton96, Dr. Cynic, morgieb, TXDem, Frodo, MaxQue, Thomas D, NVTownsend, Homely, Rooney, NVGonzalez, Badger, polnut, RodPresident, Seattle, Franzl, Mr. X, Liberal Junkie, Peeperkorn, Miles, Napoleon, afleitch, Holmes, ID BDD, JFK Dem, Poirot, nclib, Lief, Keystone Phil, Smid, Belgian, Lewis T, Fuzzy, bgwah, bore, shua, Dallasfan, Gustaf, cinyc, MasterSanders, dead0man, Cathcon, Torie, Jbrase, Jerseyrules, ChairmanSanchez, 20RP12, Winfield, Mr. Libertarian)

I love how the guy running around talking about how useless the Vice Presidency is, is now upset that its intended purpose is at stake.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I was wrong, then.  My bad

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Reponses like "get over yourself" to perfectly reasonable comments are exactly why people don't want Napoleon in the senate. Has Marokai been harsh? Sure he has. But he hasn't resorted to bullshit like that. And the second someone does, the whole debate goes to hell in a handbasket. The senate has gone through too many periods of inactivity to have somone come along who'll discourage participation even more.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I will be giving Goldwater (after all lets not get ridiculous here) first preference, but I'm undecided on my other preferences.

[Napoleon]

Reponses like "get over yourself" to perfectly reasonable comments are exactly why people don't want Napoleon in the senate. Has Marokai been harsh? Sure he has. But he hasn't resorted to bullshit like that. And the second someone does, the whole debate goes to hell in a handbasket. The senate has gone through too many periods of inactivity to have somone come along who'll discourage participation even more.

I don't think telling a hypocrite on a high horse to get over himself is that offensive but I would be open minded if you are willing to explain it to me. I meant it as advice, not an insult...perhaps you thought his comments were perfectly reasonable. Out of context, I suppose they are. I recall a time where a party took control of the Senate and picked "their guy" over a more active Senator to be PPT, and "their guy" just completely gave up and quit. I took a different path. I moved on and tried to fix things, instead of letting everything fall into decay. Even one of your own bills, no one was interested in actually debating it, I kept pushing (respectfully, of course) and got something going. Now in the end, my concerns weren't ever satisfied but I still signed the bill instead of making a fiasco about it. If anything Marokai was saying was remotely true, that I just want to stir things up, I'd be doing it. Obviously that isn't the case. He's having one of his little fits; soon he'll be over it and we'll all be friends and sh**t. It happens.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

No, you know exactly what you're doing. I take issue with a lot of what you do, but one thing you're not is stupid.

[Napoleon]

No, you know exactly what you're doing. I take issue with a lot of what you do, but one thing you're not is stupid.

I'm sorry, I don't. I agree that I'm not stupid. Common ground there. I take issue with a lot of what you do but I don't feel the need to wear it on my sleeve and make a fight out of it. What is it I'm doing? Do you disagree with my post? What would you have said?

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Well, honestly... I wouldn't have dug myself into this hole to begin with. It might be a start to avoid telling people to get off their high horses and putting words in their mouth, though. The only reason I "make a fight out of it" is because I don't believe someone whose job performance was so universally disapproved of just months ago should somehow get a pass when there are numerous candidates who don't have that record of negativity. And I think that's fair.

Also, I just want to note that my last comment was directed at your post before you edited it. This part was new:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, you know I've said before that I appreciated the respectful debate from you on the Firearms and Mental Health Act. I also agree that it was unfortunate more senators weren't willing to contribute to the discussion. And I'll give you credit for signing it (even though I'm sure you knew we would have overridden the veto anyway). Now, I'm not sure why you decided to change your tone with this particular bill, but this example is unfortunately a bit of an anomaly. I'd like to think it's partly because you know I'm not willing to take shit, but I might be giving myself too much credit.

Despite all this, I really don't hate you. Straight up, I just don't enjoy working with you that much. And I'm not the only one. I think having you in the senate will impede the process, so I won't be voting for you. If others want to give you another chance, that's fine. They're free to argue their point just as I'm free to argue mine. I only hope we can do it without putting words in people's mouths, being overly sarcastic, or throwing names around.

[Napoleon]

Thanks for the response. I also apologize for putting words into your mouth, though I admit to not knowing exactly what words I put into your mouth. After reading through my post, I assume you mean my reference to something being offensive. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Again, if you don't like working with me that's fine, you haven't really tried to anyway. I'm willing to work with anyone, though, and I think you can at least vouch for me on that. My problem with you is that you always seem to be on the attack. I don't really ever insult you or comment on you in any threads but you always seem to have something bad to say about me.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I was talking mostly about your response to Marokai. You've answered most of my jabs pretty respectfully, to be honest.

About the second part... I decided early that I wasn't going to sit and take it like a lot of other people seem to do. Maybe you don't realize exactly how you come off sometimes, but when you say I'm on the attack, I usually feel like I'm really on the defense! Maybe I've over-corrected. Either way, I think it's likely we're both a little wrong. Obviously I think I'm in the right more often than not (I assume think the same about yourself), but that's fine... there's always room for me to improve the way I deal with others, so your input is noted. I guess I just don't see all this willingness to cooperate that you keep talking about. Instead, I see you walking into threads and saying things right off the bat like "I'll never support this," "lol," or "it will be vetoed" without much follow up. Where was the willingness to cooperate when you vetoed three straight bills without actually trying to make things agreeable for you beforehand? And you're right... when that stuff happens, I am not quiet and I do not let myself get steamrolled. I think it's better than saying nothing, but maybe I'm wrong.

Either way, to your credit, I think we are actually seeing some improvements. I liked the conversation we had on my bill. There have also been a few other olive branches elsewhere. But I still don't think it's enough to outweigh everything else. Sorry.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you break my furniture you're going to fing own it. And the chairs cost $20,000, each.

[Napoleon]

If you break my furniture you're going to fing own it. And the chairs cost $20,000, each.

Charge it to the taxpayers.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

If you break my furniture you're going to fing own it. And the chairs cost $20,000, each.

Charge it to the taxpayers.

The people didn't break it though, why should they pay for the mistakes of politicians.

I recall a time where a party took control of the Senate and picked "their guy" over a more active Senator to be PPT, and "their guy" just completely gave up and quit.

Party had nothing to do with that PPT election in January 2012, as much as philosophy regarding how the Senate should be run. Many saw your previous push for a partisan administration and were alarmed and hence the vote came out the way it did. Maybe it was a mistaken assumption, but that was the basis for the desire to have someone else, certainly not some party take over.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It was not a mistaken assumption, regardless of whatever ensued. Napoleon openly advocated for the PPT position to become more partisan and resemble more of a "Majority Leader" role than an unpartisan administrator. Which is just another thing to chalk against him being in the Senate, IMO.

[Napoleon]

It was not a mistaken assumption, regardless of whatever ensued. Napoleon openly advocated for the PPT position to become more partisan and resemble more of a "Majority Leader" role than an unpartisan administrator. Which is just another thing to chalk against him being in the Senate, IMO.

Yes, an idea to improve the Senate conjured when people were complaining about a "stale" two-party system means that I shouldn't be in the Senate.

What's the deal, man? You're just throwing the kitchen sink at me at this point. Did someone tell you I slept with your mom? I promise I didn't. There's no reason for you to be acting the way you are.