Federalist Party Irregular Emergency Meeting (Closed)

[Leinad]

Specific region, or any? And, for quick reference, what have been recent convention cities in the past? I know Baltimore was the last one.

[Leinad]

McKinney, Texas.

Rated "best place to live" a few years back by...someone.

[Leinad]

City Selection:

Official Ballot (please rank the following):
[3] Ashland, Oregon
[5] Ripon, Wisconsin
[4] Portland, Maine
[2] Mobile, Alabama
[1] McKinney, Texas

Expulsion Vote

Official Ballot:
[X] Aye
[  ] Nay

We can totally be a democratic party and expulse members who take positions hostile to our platform and our nation. We're a private entity, not a public one. I have no opposition to Talleyrand, or anyone, running, but I take issue with someone carrying the party's flag into battle even though they have frankly anti-Atlasian positions, and a history of trollish behavior.

Here's just one example I dug up:

As for a reboot or convention, that's politically unfeasible as long as you have the "regional rights" and reactionaries in this game. The best way forward is to give the game a dignified death after eleven long years and start afresh on a smaller scale with more focus on what actually makes this game fun.

With context, he was clearly talking about Federalists like Yankee. But beyond that, it's a testament to his dissolve-first-ask-questions-later approach that he hasn't retracted, as far as I can tell. That method would be disastrous, and we've moved beyond that with the Constitutional Convention.

And over in South America, he proposed a similarly disastrous sweeping ban on simultaneous officeholding (which, for what it's worth, was shot down by yours truly). He still holds that belief:

However, I'd advocate ban on holding offices in the two games simultaneously, since it's a tantamount for conflict of interests if there are differences between the two sides (more than likely). Imagine someone trying to be a United States Senator and Minister in Brazil at the same time. Utterly illogical.

This was literally proposed by Talleyrand and subjected to howls of derision and went on to form the basis of the shrieking about ANTI-FANTASYLAND SENTIMENT.

Yes! I am in favor of what the Senator has proposed here, but I am frankly puzzled by the fact that when I suggested a similarly reasonable plan, it was shouted down as "bitter" and an attempt to destroy this nation, including by Mr. Griffin, a terrorist who has done far more damage to this game than the unfairly maligned Mock Parliament.

Kalwejt was later convinced to take the reasonable approach, which I agree with, to only limit it to key offices like the President, Prime Minister, or foreign relations officials. But there was no change of heart by our new "Federalist" senate candidate.

And not only does he hold stances that we all know will send Atlasia further down the tubes (including openly wanting to send it down there), his consistent uncivil behaviour, even towards members of what's supposedly his own party, is enough "character witness" evidence to say this isn't the guy we want representing us in the senate. Take, for example, him basically calling one of our senator's an idiot:

Welcome to the party

Glad to have the support of posters from all intelligence levels!

Not to mention his bombardment of insults on the Pacific Speaker in this thread, his previous accusations that I was a sock (which, unlike another person who accused me of that around the same time, he never apologized or even explained it--to this day I'm unsure how he thought I "basically admitted it"), and the fact that he seems to have re-registered merely to get rid of one of the only two functioning members of the executive branch.

Look, I'm not saying he should be banned from Atlasia, or shouldn't run. I'm just saying that we shouldn't let him run under the Federalist Party banner.

(You may be thinking that this is a rather long post merely to settle an argument that's basically already settled, but for one thing, it basically wrote itself, and for another thing, this is also to pre-emptively keep people from bashing us for this decision later on. And please don't cherry-pick one weak point--I made many points. It's a no-brainer.)

[Leinad]

I have no desire to fight with the Federalist Party and I have taken on stances at odds with the party's platform. That is a patently false statement!!!

I believe you mean "no stances?" If so, it's not a false statement. Maybe it's not in the party platform, but I'd say most of us are for a Constitutional Convention (when you left before you were against it, preferring dissolution) and against a sweeping dual officeholding ban (which I will explain shortly...), and these are big issues, given that those positions are dangerous to the future of Atlasia.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, you support the compromise, but you're still in favor of a larger ban, right? As I said above, on September 24th you clearly indicated that you still supported that idea, and unless I missed something haven't reversed those beliefs.

And apparently I'm an intellectually dishonest liar who lacks decency? This unsolicited rudeness won't win you any support. I'm not bothered by it, it's just annoying when name-calling is the best someone can come up with.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When have you rescinded those beliefs? I apologize if I missed that--I'm not that obsessed where I dig through every post of yours to find something like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said otherwise. The point is that, combined with other uncivil discourse and trollish behaviour, it's a "character witness" thing. It's not just one point--I made many points. Your conduct with me, JoMCaR, Classic Conservative in this thread, and your attempts to remove one of the few functioning members of the executive branch, all together, makes me cynical of your intentions.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I responded.

Leinad, I completely understand where you're coming from. It's just that I have a personal objection to expulsion, since it seems dangersouly close to the purges of the communists.

The difference is that we're a political party, not the government. We aren't saying he can't be in Atlasia, say what he wants, run for office, or even take office--no, we're just questioning whether he should be a member of our party. I think we have the right to do that.

[Leinad]

The amusing thing about the hysteria surrounding the officeholding ban is that Atlasia has literally the exact same thing in its Constitution, it's just that no-one's noticed it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well then we should get rid of that at the ConCon, because as I've explained ad nauseum, it's a badly destructive policy. The Constitution certainly needs to be updated in that regard--it was written in a pre-South American world.

[Leinad]

I was asked to count the votes, but it seems Evergreen has already done that! Thanks, Ms. Speaker!

Nevertheless, I'll double-check everything.

First of all, the ruling by Yankee, the captain of this ship, is that X's vote doesn't count because he became a member of the party after the vote started. I agree with this decision--nothing personal to anyone specific, it's just a rather dangerous loophole, and it's no less strict a rule than the Atlasian election ones.

Also, I agree with Evergreen's decision to put Classic Conservative's ballot at only 1 and 2, due to the fact that he had two 5th preferences. (I do stuff like that all the time, which is why I obsessively proofread.)

Fortunately, neither of those errors matter! So no controversy here! Phew...

Anyway, as Evergreen correctly computed, the winner (6-5 on the final round, no tiebreakers necessary), and the host of the Federalist Party Convention is...

McKinney, Texas!

Congratulations to the city just north of the DFW metroplex, I'm sure it will make a wonderful host, and I look forward to attending.