March referendum

[Adam Griffin]

Truly Amazing! Yet another Glorious Win for the Good Guys!

Fremont & Lincoln Combined:

[Adam Griffin]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

[Adam Griffin]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

It's not a good look to suggest that you're the smartest person in the room as you and your partisans often do. Typically, it's the most objectively ignorant who think they're the smartest, and people know just how much they don't know the more they actually do know. To be clear, the latter example is not meant as a suggestion of my intelligence (or lack thereof) which I am not commenting on whatsoever.

Your comments and those of Devout Centrist also reinforce voters' preexisting views of your party as ungracious in victory.

You personally just want to argue and hate on Labor no matter what, lol. You've shown this both on the forum and in Discord for ages. Stop trying to turn it into some philosophical quandary. There've been 100 just like you before and - inshallah - 100 more to come.

And oh no: I guess after 11 years of people being mad at us for simply existing, subsquently winning and ultimately bucking their blind hatred of us (because, almost always in the context of this game, we are both better and smarter than most), the comments in this thread from DC & I will finally be what takes us down for good! #AbandonAllHope #LieborIsDiebor

[Adam Griffin]

Also, with 16/18 Senators (89% of Senators) voting on the final bill the claim of an inactive Senate as a whole, across party lines, is pretty inaccurate.

Well it is. You can vote because someone told you to vote that way without having to read the bill at all.

How do you explain the difference between the vote in the senate and the amendment going down in flames in the two regions then?

Labor is GOTVing against the amendment and telling voters how to vote (against it), which is something you supposedly don't like. Or are you really going to try to claim that isn't the case?

Welcome to the Labor Party, uh, *checks notes* Christian Man, AGA, and Cokeland Saxton!

So Labor didn't GOTV against the amendment? What a complete lie. Good to know Labor's still lying to the public.

Of course we GOTV'd against this abomination of an amendment. Sorry you lack basic reading comprehension there.

There's only one little group of people who supported that garbage by any measurement approaching unanimity. Even a third or more of both conservatives at-large and/or Federalists opposed it (which shows you how horrid, toxic and dumb this amendment was in the first place).

If you want to make the argument that ~35% of right-of-center Atlasians went against such garbage because Labor gave them marching orders, then you're free to do so - but it'll either further lower your perceived intelligence among everybody who knows better, or make your own party seem incredibly effete to those who don't. I don't recommend either course of action, personally!

Ultimately, 70% of voters who mattered rejected this cancer. That includes many conservatives. Labor helped pad the margins and ensure its defeat, but such a dumb idea was never going to pass when even 53% of non-Laborites opposed it as well!

It's not a good look to suggest that you're the smartest person in the room as you and your partisans often do. Typically, it's the most objectively ignorant who think they're the smartest, and people know just how much they don't know the more they actually do know. To be clear, the latter example is not meant as a suggestion of my intelligence (or lack thereof) which I am not commenting on whatsoever.

Your comments and those of Devout Centrist also reinforce voters' preexisting views of your party as ungracious in victory.

You personally just want to argue and hate on Labor no matter what, lol. You've shown this both on the forum and in Discord for ages. Stop trying to turn it into some philosophical quandary. There've been 100 just like you before and - inshallah - 100 more to come.

And oh no: I guess after 11 years of people being mad at us for simply existing, subsquently winning and ultimately bucking their blind hatred of us (because, almost always in the context of this game, we are both better and smarter than most), the comments in this thread from DC & I will finally be what takes us down for good! #AbandonAllHope #LieborIsDiebor

This just proves my point. It might help to try to be humble at least once. Unabashed holier-than-thou positioning and "I'm so smart" is a sign of real insecurity. Being humble once in a while isn't a sign of weakness. It's just a sign of being down to earth. Again, to be clear, I'm not talking about myself at all (i.e., not saying I am better or worse than anyone else at this; this is just some insight).

You're not making a point we haven't been making for a decade. We treat our people well and crush our enemies. And contrary to what you might think, we don't think everyone who isn't Labor is an enemy. That term has and always has had a very defined and concrete meaning for us that requires action on their part proactively. And building a Fantasyland dynasty doesn't involve being humble, just in case you're wondering!

And you've had a problem with Labor ever since it elected you Southern Governor - and for whatever reason - you decided to immediately do multiple really dumb things to cater exclusively to the right, followed by someone sending you a PM asking why are were doing such - to which you flew off the handle, left the party and accused people of bullying you or whatever, lol.

But your story is not unique. Virtually every left-of-center person with an axe to grind against Labor who has been in the game for a couple of years or more has the same backstory: someone who used us to achieve their own personal endeavors, took advantage of our voters and infrastructure, was perfectly happy to participate in everything we do that makes the aforementioned possible, and then only after achieving such or being done with their personal ambitions, betrayed us and suddenly decided "oh Labor is bad [?]" (whether it be because "they're bored" or just hate when anyone expects equivalent commitment). It's really sad and laughable. We reward consistency and loyalty, and in exchange - all too often - our reward is betrayal via hypocrisy.

[Adam Griffin]

Not going to bother rehashing history I know, but I'll end with replying to this:

And tbf, you can be politically successful without being personally vitriolic. Success doesn't mandate being toxic. Cao proved just that when he won his two terms as President.

Your definition of "toxic" (for me personally) = being an arrogant but honest MFer to everyone. Always have been, always will be. It's a feature, not a bug!

And I'm the only one to have four terms under my belt and built the foundation for the longest-existing, most successful and largest party in the 20-year history of the game, so...regardless of your commentary, I'd say with regard to my own behavior: I know what I'm doing!

Also, why would this (center-leftists leaving Labor) keep happening, as you so often mention, if Labor doesn't have a toxicity problem? Are people just eager to cast the party which elected them and which could re-elect them to the wayside for chaos' sake?

Yes (mostly; you were just a weirdo in that regard - most who fall into this category don't abandon us until they are done with high office). Success - and the prerequisite loyalty that comes with it to ensure all in our community prosper - isn't for everyone.

Unfortunately, the game has always been inhabited by teenagers (along with those who maintain such mindsets) who - by definition of being on this forum - are obsessed with politics and always think they can create some big, grand independent endeavor without understanding what it takes to maintain such for more than a few weeks/months. Additionally, some people are just abusive in nature and use people without being willing to give their dedication in return.

To any extent I personally have ever "used" someone in my party, I've always been willing to give them equivalent exchange by indulging every one of their electoral desires when possible (a real, big party can't run everybody for President or Senate all at once, of course, but alas!). In fact, I'd need several hands to just count the number of people who backstabbed us, later came back and we forgave them and gave them second, third and even fourth chances at electoral success!

As far as Labor at-large goes, that includes making a whole hell of a lot of people who in retrospect never should have held high office into winners, who only after being granted their wishes and serving their tenures in full decide they then want to complain about how they got everything they wanted despite participating in all of such.

Again: I'm an old man - especially by Atlasia standards. I've been privy to internal chat and scheming from almost any party/group that has ever graced the game with even a transient presence over the past decade. I can say wholeheartedly that the kinds of s[inks]t every other faction and group says and [attempts to] do behind the scenes - against us or about us - is no less different/bad/intense/mean than whatever the people who got their fill from us and then claim with a straight face that we're "toxic" do in their spare time. Before they hated, schemed or bad-talked us, they did the same against many of the same people they now call "allies". Very embarrassing! Maybe there's a pill for that - I don't know - but we are if anything consistent.

[Adam Griffin]

In closing, I don't think it's quite accurate to imply that everyone who turned against Labor was equally as toxic as the leadership. It's overly reductionist to imply that anyone opposed to you must be a hypocrite.

Never attempted to apply that to 100% of people who left Labor. Among those who ascended to high office and left after the fact, however... it's a solid majority. Every one of them were in the upper echelons of Labor leadership for many months if not years on end.

Plausible deniability here: even if it applies, every person can still say it doesn't apply to them, of course!

It's also very possible that many who leave Labor would rather lose or be in a minor party than stand for more politically successful toxicity. The goal of a third party, also, is to be the kingmakers, if not to become a top-two party.

Perhaps some never consider just how we have survived so long and against so many onslaughts & odds, or what we hypothetically would be willing to do en masse if faced with the threat of genuine extinction at the hands of people who put hating us as their primary platform plank. Perhaps at such a hypothetical point, we too would become "kingmakers" for the same coalition that such a hypothetical entity also attempted to bolster? After all, virtually every other [non-Federalist] group in history that decided to try to eliminate us has done such as a first resort. I can't imagine such would ever happen except under the most dire of circumstances, but as one example, we allied with/backed the Federalists temporarily in 2015 to shut out a toxic third party personality cult who was destroying both the game and the duopoly. One of the big benefits of a large party is that it can survive an electoral drought for far longer than a smaller party looking to prove itself.

However, I have utmost confidence that we'll never have to even consider exploring such untoward depths (outside of such a hypothetical exercise here, of course) or resort to the kinds of tactics that many others have considered to be the prime arrows in their golden quivers! Our ideological principles are what ground us, after all: only a genuine emergency would justify pondering such unsettling considerations - let alone acting on them!