Poriot do you literally not pay attention
I get the feeling he doesn't...
I'm not a fan of your use of adjective to describe people but you are being too kind here. You call someone treacherous for switching party and the party switch of your primary opponent was done in a situation much worse than for what you use treacherous. She turned her back in office on people who elected her, in a divided political situation, giving control to another side.
You have no idea what was going on behind the scenes, so to act like Labor was just as engaged in then-fairly new fhtagn's enjoyment of the game as the Federalists were, and that the only reason she switched was just a random impulse to BETRAY THE PEOPLE, is absurdly disingenuous, and really appears like a petty attack.
I feel like you just decided you wanted to hate fhtagn, and fit the facts to the narrative she's evil (along with, apparently, the entire Federalist Party).
The loophole interpretation for dual office holding started immediately with the new constitution under a Federalist President. The If it doesn't say explicitely I can't do something I can doctrine. The Federalists have liked to cut corners following the law since the reboot.[/quote]
Haha, I remember the incident in question. When I appointed Peebs, then a Southern Delegate, to be RG. Federal legislators were already allowed to be in the cabinet, so by logical extension regional legislators should also. It's not exactly the same thing, but it's no more than what was explicitly legal. Federal legislator + regional executive
is more than both of those things, since they're both elected offices, is it not? Of course it is (especially when you consider that the non-elected office I appointed Peebs to was one that has no role in regional or federal policy outside of an occasional advisor). Now, I'm not saying it's illegal what Labor did, and I'm definitely not saying it's wrong (because it seems like it was the only option), but it is
definitely a different discussion, in that it's two elected offices (regardless of if one was appointed or not).
The incumbent President is by all accounts a well-regarded person, but she will do nothing, change nothing. Can do nothing, can change nothing. She is an empty vessel, a puppet of the shadowy party hacks and cosy cronies that have stabbed us in the back.
I feel like saying "this is incorrect" doesn't do it's inaccuracy justice, and saying "this is wrong" doesn't put into perspective the wide chasm between your statement and the truth. But do I really need to? Obviously you are just as out-of-touch to the inner-workings of the party as Poirot is, so obviously these claims are, as they were with Poirot, clearly nothing more than political cliches to fit a narrative (the narrative that fhtagn can't think for herself, which is obviously wrong, and if you think about it kind of offensive).
And how come you are sure fhtagn can't do anything to fix anything, but you can? Why would we believe you? Fhtagn has clearly been far more involved in the game over the last several months than you (or for that matter almost anyone), so why would we expect you would be more involved as President?
Uh...do you mean everyone gets to make up stories? Or we just make laws willy-nilly with no consequences? I agree that that part of the game could be much better, but imo it's much better with some form of game moderation than without it.
You are at least the 5th person to use this...and I feel like I'm missing some...Cris, Adam, Clarence, Maxwell...hmm...
Anyway, I feel like this is all another short-term Trump impression by a mostly inactive veteran (see: "Make Atlasia Great Again," "I alone can fix it," "free of all outside influence," all the name-calling, etc.). Which is fine, makes the game slightly more compelling I guess, but since people might vote for you I decided to rebuff some of your crazier claims nonetheless.
Also:
The incompetent Peebs has never shown any sense that she takes her job seriously so I suggest we treat her presidential campaign in the same way.
Peebs is awesome.
