Moderate Labor Caucus?

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Why should moderates be in Labor?

Amazing that they weren't scared off by that Labor Supreme Court Justice talking about the need to "control reproductive access to one or more females to pass on our genes."

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't think the Federalist party is in any position to say what they will not stand, personally. A bit like getting your thirty pieces of silver, using it to make a down payment on a new house, and then saying, "listen, I had no idea what they were doing with those crosses."

If the Feds and ACP were totally independent, they would run competing slates for the House instead of coordinating in hopes of electing a right-wing majority. Simple as that.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I am glad that Yankee and diptheriadan do not think women are property to be used as breeding stock, however. You have to take what you can get in times like these.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't think the Federalist party is in any position to say what they will not stand, personally. A bit like getting your thirty pieces of silver, using it to make a down payment on a new house, and then saying, "listen, I had no idea what they were doing with those crosses."

I didn't let Polnut silence me, I sure as hell am not going to let you.

Not trying to silence anyone, Yankee. I'm glad someone is finally speaking out against the deranged neo-fascists who are trying to take over your party. But this isn't a communist thought experiment: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't think the Federalist party is in any position to say what they will not stand, personally. A bit like getting your thirty pieces of silver, using it to make a down payment on a new house, and then saying, "listen, I had no idea what they were doing with those crosses."

I didn't let Polnut silence me, I sure as hell am not going to let you.

Not trying to silence anyone, Yankee. I'm glad someone is finally speaking out against the deranged neo-fascists who are trying to take over your party. But this isn't a communist thought experiment: you can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Jesus Christ Truman, the radicals weren't stopped in a day.

Resists urge to note how the radicals voted for in Oct 2015

You know what screw it, Adam has proven time and time again he wasn't confined to the options presented to him in a given situation. And the game lives to this day BECAUSE OF THAT FACT!

Oh, I don't think Adam has ever claimed to possess the moral high ground. Labor made a deal with the Devil in the years leading up to 2015 and they paid for it, as you have frequently observed. (And well you should!) Now the Federalists are in the same position of having to exorcise their demons if they wish to survive as a coherent force in national politics. In the mean time, I don't see why your party should be immune from criticism just because it has finally turned on these poisonous elements at the last possible moment. Furthermore, I resent people making snide comments about how my party is full of cRaZy SoCiAlIsTs when we all know the Feds have been perfectly willing to prop up these elements, whatever illusions of "independence" may exist.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I wasn't talking about pre-2015 though. Adam sought out and won many radical votes in Oct 2015 on the basis that we was the best one to achieve reform, while at the same time working as a bull work against them achieving their objectives.

Okay? Labor did not repay that support in kind by helping to elect Radical candidates during that period. I distinctly remember conversations with Adam that December where we discussed plans to run GOTV for Clark Kent if y'all didn't have enough votes to elect him over Maxwell, and I personally campaigned for RFayette in October 2015 when we came within a couple of votes of electing him to the Senate that month (if only).

My problem is not that you're condemning these elements now while still presumably benefiting from hard-right votes. To use a real-life example, I'm sure Mitt Romney's popular vote total from 2012 included racists who opposed Barack Obama solely because he was black; but that does not make Mitt Romney a racist or somehow responsible for those people's racism. My problem is that the evils you identify in your announcement speech for chair have been festering for months, and while it is only now that we are seeing Federalist leaders denounce them, you want to be absolved from all culpability in their rise and are outraged anyone would suggest that, you know, the Federalists are partly to blame for cultism and extremism on the right. PiT's quote is just an example of a larger problem that everyone knew existed, but apparently few if any within the Feds were willing to oppose. I don't mean to target you personally, Yankee, because I know your opposition to these elements is more than opportunism. But to say that Federalists as a group cannot be blamed for the rise of cultism and the hard right when they actively abetted both over the last year is cutting yourselves some unearned slack, in my not-so-humble opinion.

And please, don't try to tell me the Feds and ACP have not been coordinating with re: the House since April. I'm not that dumb. It's incredibly obvious that electing fhtagn was part of the plan for getting a rightist majority in the House for the last several cycles, or y'all would have run five Federalist candidates instead of four. I may not be the brightest strategic mind out there, but I've been around long enough to know how slates are put together and what considerations go into a national election.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

I don't really have anything more to say, Yankee. Feel free to PM me if you want to continue this conversation in private. The point I've been making for the past hour or so is that the Fed leadership made a conscious choice to support cultism and the hard right, and now you want to be able to claim the moral high ground on those issues. Fine. That you are dredging up examples from four years ago (of candidates who I opposed at the time) as proof that the left is also morally compromised doesn't really change anything.

I hope that the past few days are more than an aberration, and that we really will see an effort by moderates on the right to stand by their values and oppose candidates whose poisonous behavior makes the game worse for everyone. It wouldn't be the first time Atlasians were able to transcend party self-interest for the greater good —but I'll believe it when I see it.