The South will rise again.

[Wisconsin+17]

Surely you can understand why this process is disruptive though and why desperate people would seek radical alternatives be it in the form of Trump or Sanders or someone else who is disrupting the status quo.

On the contrary, eventually we are all Austrians. Kicking the can only works for so long. Sanderites are going to pull a Venezuela and Trumpists are going to pile on the debt. At some point fiscal sanity will reassert itself.

I don't see how cutting spending and lowering taxes is going to disrupt the status quo.

[Wisconsin+17]

I do that every day Ben. Every vote, every PM, every post. Should I have made this one, should I have done more in this election or that election.

That is what makes this process so much more painful, because I have attempted to bring "conservatives" of all varieties to the table and feel like this is yet another example of me seeing a potential problem, trying my absolute hardest to address it, and then in spite of all that effort, the problem happens anyway and better yet I am the villain for not doing enough.

I believe I explicitly said that none of us consider you the problem. For most of us, myself included, the only reason the Feds work is because, not in spite of you.

As for me, yeah, I've made many mistakes. I could have handled things better on multiple occasions. I already said it here that the reason this didn't work last time is because of me, not you or anyone else.

I sure as hell ain't perfect, never claimed to be.

[Wisconsin+17]

Are drugs a menace to society? Most certainly. But like any small government conservative should be asking, is a full scale war on the drugs that has been waged for thirty years plus without much success, the best approach to discouraging its use? I don't think so at this point because the evidence tells me that it has not worked.

Well, right now, if you are depressed and go on drugs you can get rehab paid for and benefits etc. But if you go on medications you have to pay for them. Many of our drug policies actually incentivize drug use through perverse incentives. We dish out methadone, and free needles, while making people pay through the nose for lithium.

Most of our social policies are designed to provide benefits for those who have made conscious decisions to try and destroy their lives. Whereas many responsible people are having difficulties making ends meet. We have responsible people taking drug tests to work even low level jobs paying for benefits that go to help people taking drugs recover.

Now, we are seeing the advent of medical dope and abuse of the disability system so that drug users can get their fixes paid for by the government. Meanwhile if you need glasses, you're paying for them.

The drug lobby is huge. The solution isn't legalization, as drug usage has increased. Significantly. The only thing I can see is to incentivize staying off drugs by making welfare require a clean drug test. Make being clean a pre requisite for access to government services, etc.

Three strikes for convictions of driving and losing your license until you get clean would also be another incentive.

[Wisconsin+17]

Regarding this point, I will tell you that the debt is a much smaller problem here in Atlasia than in the RL USA. We are close to balancing the budget, which will probably be done in 2020 or 2021 at worst.

Yes, fortunately we've had much more fiscal sanity in game than in the real world. Still, there is no reason to be running deficits.

[Wisconsin+17]

We have a lower deficit

We had a Fed governor overrule a successfully passed Fed budget, He got angry because it didn't include spending that he wanted that had been rejected by the Delegates. Surprise, surprise, he abused emergency powers to get the spending he wanted.

We have fewer entitlement programs, even while reforming health care on pro-market and pro-region lines.

We have Feds pushing for the massive boondoggle that is single payer.
 

We have empowered regions on health care and education

By ramming down constraints on private schools and curriculum control. We were better off years ago than we are now.

We have transferred administration power over Regional Senate seats to the Regions

Yet, we are forced to legalize drugs. Full on ramming speed!

We have eliminated as many if not more regulations than they have in real life.

And added many more such as publicly funded puberty blockers.

We have passed bills to protect the bill of rights and many aspects of it.

And stripped away rights through Obergefell style laws.

We have conducted a wide ranging audit of the Federal Gov't.

While still running routine deficits.

The Federalist record of the past five years is pretty well summed up as socialism with the brakes on. The Fed record is very mixed. Many decent laws with some absolutely horrific ones. There just comes a point when you are tired of being lectured on for being opposed to drugs, single payer and the whole below the waist issues.

To say that I alone am good while every other Federalist has been terrible is an insult to the many Federalists who have achieved these results.

Some Federalists are good, but the majority of the 'good' federalists have now left the party. I never said that all the Federalists were bad, but that there were some prominent Federalists that were imposing their values on the party as a whole.

Your posts here keep proving me right, not only do you not get it you keep trying to make a case that our values should incorporate these ones. Gonna NOPE out of that, TYVM.

You give me the conservative results, the conservative success that the GOP in real life accomplished in 2017 and 2018?

Removal of public funding for PP was a big one for me.

The reason I keep the RIGHT, yes the RIGHT afloat in this game is because there has in fact been a vision and there has in fact been an agenda.

There is a vision. But when you say that 'homosexuality is a part of tradcon values', then I can only say that your vision is not my vision. And there are a fair number who agree with me on that. That is what you are not getting, that for many of us these are 'line in the sand' issues. I can't justify supporting a party that supports this, when there are other viable options out there that don't shove this on me.

I know your first cry will be 'demographics', but there are a helluva lot more traditional Catholics out there than they are homosexuals. I serve the people who aren't getting any love. What you don't understand is branding. We have what, 5 parties that are liberal on this issue? If there are 10 percent of the people here on the Atlas who agree with me, than having one party that does not support these things is viable. And it helps the game because it means these people have a voice.

by demanding everyone adopt to rigid conformity, less they get executed for treason like the real life GOP and conservative movement operates.

Recall attempts sponsored by their own party is not really different from a political lynching. I don't see how you can claim that you weren't pushing 'rigid conformity' while at the other time turning a blind eye to my recall.

You know what my role in that has been.

Indeed. You seem far more concerned with my return and joining another party that you ever were with my departure. It wasn't you who invited me back or asked me politely to return. Although there were some other Feds who did so.

I told them what I am telling you that I was very unhappy as a member of the party and I did not want to be where I was not wanted. I certainly did not want to rejoin and face the exact same intraparty dynamics, and the same situation in the Delegates as when I left. That was pointless to me.

I know how to find and promote talent to the highest levels.

Then why are you losing people? What is it about what you are doing or what the party as a whole is doing to turn all these folks off? I have given you several and so far you have brushed them off because it doesn't fit your narrative. Listen more, talk less would probably be in order.

Lets be honest here, you are not rejecting the awful federalists "because Yankee, I just can't take it anymore". You are turning your back on playbook that has worked for TEN Years, that has delivered more concrete results in two years, than the real life GOP has in 100 fing years and all of that for an echo-chamber safe space.

I've actually successfully implemented a collaborative effort in the past. So this does not strike me as particularly valuable. With the way our voting system works I am not convinced that candidates who can garner a broad appeal will have difficulty attracting votes.

And if your candidates cannot do that, well, that speaks volumes for them.

The real life conservative movement has let you down and will continue to do so, again and again and again.

It wasn't the real life conservative movement that recalled me. Actually, the real life conservative movement has treated me with a ton of respect. Many of the folks that I work with and the folks that pay my bills are involved with them.

You know who hasn't given me a lot of that? The Federalists. That's part of why I left. I realized that I was too busy actually working with Conservatives in RL to waste time here. People go where they are wanted. You can't look me in my eye and say that the Feds wanted me, not after my recall. 

[Wisconsin+17]

How about working to get prescription drug costs under control? Which we have kind of sorta started to do here unlike real life.

Federalizing and consolidating health care under Single Payer is the direct opposite path, if your goal is to make healthcare costs manageable.

You would be better off by turning it back to the regions and allowing us to choose our coverage, or better yet, letting people choose individual policy options for coverage a la carte. But Atlasia has been consistently moving in the opposite direction. I suppose reducing what people pay makes a good canard to favor consolidation, but it actually massively increases the overall health care costs.

[Wisconsin+17]

I am also a strong believe in the free market and in capitalism. I think people are empowered when they can tell someone who gives them a bad product "F-u" and walk down the street to a competitor. That is empowering and that is the free market at its optimum. The alternative is slavery, and eventually, socialism.

How does that square with 'bake the cake' laws in Oregon? The Free market works both ways. Businesses by the first amendment have the right to decline work that is contrary to their branding. Most people don't really believe in free market, believing they should have the power to constrain how businesses operate through a morass of regulations. All that does is raise costs, and in order to save money, businesses have to invest in lawyers and not actual workers.

The problem is preserving the Free market and lassiez-faire work at cross purposes because you have regulatory capture and you have economies of scale. This means that monopolies form from entrenched advantage and buying off of the government.

Certain industries work best this way. Ones that require substantial capital formation will be natural monopolies, and breaking them up won't help anyone, least of all the consumer.

To correct this, you need to remove or simplify most of the regulation that has been captured. We have passed dozens of bills deregulating the economy thanks to the hard work of Mr. Reactionary. But you need the other hand, on the other hand, those regulations that remain, have to be simple, effective and vigorously enforced, to ensure that competition is maintained.

Some of the regulations you have passed are beneficial. Some are not.

The problem with Austrians, is that mistake the unregulated free market for God and let it dictate policy as if it is the almighty. I disagree with that, God is God, and for me, I think we need to act in the public interest and yes act to preserve the free market.

Austrians believe that all regulations have a cost associated with them and that regulations do nothing more than increase prices. The question has to be, 'is this regulation appropriate'? Trustbusting is a progressive policy and not usually motivated for the benefit of the general economy or the consumer, but to serve other policy ends. I agree it's not a simple decision as 'regulations bad', it will depend on the industry and so on and so forth.

You say in the end we are all Austrians, no I think the end result of lassiez faire is socialism. You know how I know this, because the USSR went to great lengths to fund Randian academic thought.

Walk into my wheelhouse, eh? Go study Peter Stolypin and get back to me. I did a paper on him. What Stolypin did was massively overhaul the Russian economy along lines we would refer to as market capitalist. He was successful and yields increased dramatically. The problem is that he was assassinated before they could continue and we all know what happened after the Bolsheviks came to power.

Revolutionaries love the far right and they love lassiez faire, because they want enough angry, desperate, pissed off starving people so they can ride in as the savior.

Not true, actually. Had Lenin remained in a German jail, and the Tsar survived, it is likely that Russia would have done just fine. They would have been spared so much suffering and would have made the jump up to be where the rest of Europe was within 2 decades. Under Stolypin, they had already made significant progress towards a western european style capitalist market.

The reason Lenin succeeded is that he took advantage of a political crisis that had came to head. Also, blaming the laissez faire for the most primitive economy in Europe strikes me as rather self-serving. Most socialists at the time argued that the reason they were successful in Russia (and later in China), was due to serfdom. A country with a strong democratic tradition has no need for socialism or communism. 

Understand how revolutionaries come about, what context they use to their advantage and how to prevent them. The answer is not by going in the opposite direction to an equal extreme, the answer is to make the system work as it is suppose to.

An austrian would point out that the freer a people are to better their lot the more likely they are to actually do so. If the issue is lack of opportunity, why would the best system for achieving this be rejected?

The free market is suppose to be competitive, if it is not competitive, it is just as bad as nationalization. A monopoly is a monopoly be it government or private sector, and the end result is that the customer becomes a slave to the machine with no alternatives. Freedom comes when you pick up the phone or walk into a store, and tell them "F-U I am going your competitor". You cannot do that if there isn't a competitor to go to.

And you can't do that if you're a cake bakery that really just wants to make cakes, not politics. Or a wedding photographer who just wants to do photos. Freedom of association is very important.

[Wisconsin+17]

1. All present healthcare exchanges are abolished as of January 1, 2018.
2. Three new exchanges will be created and administered by the Health & Human Services (H&HS) Sub-Department, within the Department of Internal Affairs, with jurisdictions matching those of the three Regions. The H&HS Sub-Department will coordinate with regional officials during the setup and implementation process, and hand over administration and regulation of the new exchanges on January 1, 2018, to the respective Regional Government
3. All Federal restrictions on the access to these markets will be abolished as of January 1, 2018, including but not limited to the sale of insurance across regional lines.
4. On that date, the Regions will become the primary regulator of access onto their market and responsible for determining the nature and structure of healthcare providers allowed onto the exchange to compete, provided all terms of this act and federal law are complied with.
5. Should a region’s legislature fail to act by the above date, the H&HS Sub-Department will continue to administer the exchange until such time as the Regional Government is able to assume control.

Great. The issue for me is having to cover things that I don't think ought to be covered. Regional insurance is better than federal stuff, but it honestly doesn't matter if the regionals are still forcing us to cover things like puberty blockers, etc.

[Wisconsin+17]

Walk into your wheelhouse? More like walk into mine. I know very well about Peter Stolypin, and his policies, and yes they were working and yes they were cut short by his assassination. Do you know why he was assassinated though, for the same reason Alexander II was.

This is speculation. He had over 10 assassination attempts prior to the one that killed him. Stolypin had a lot of enemies. Asserting that he was assassinated by revolutionaries or the Bolsheviks is not something that we can confidently assert.

Saying that we should not try to fix a broken system because you might get assassinated by those who benefit under the present system is no different then telling Lincoln that he should not have signed the emancipation proclamation.

I never said Laissez faire was the culprit behind the revolution. The war, government incompetence and societal collapse because of those problems were the cause of the revolution.

Then you need to stop tarring laissez faire with a revolution that they had nothing to do with (on either side), and a revolution that laissez faire (and laissez faire alone), could have solved. Stolypin and his reforms were succeeding. The Communists eliminated them in 1920.

What I said was that Communists love having extremes on the opposite side as foils. Nazi Germany comes to mind. The same goes for the USSR and Randian academic thought, because they "Soviet Intelligence" believed that if they succeeded in deregulating the economy and especially finance, it would lead to excesses of poverty, recession and decline of society, that would create the backdrop for a successful revolution.

Uh, the National Socialists were not foils anymore than the Mensheviks were foils for the Bolsheviks. The truth is that Communism does need a foil, but that if the Communists don't have a natural foil that they will create one. Which is why you see divides between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, Trotskyites and Stalinists.

I would point out the record levels of support for socialism we are seeing today, which is a direct result of the recession, which in turn was caused in part by deregulation of Mortgage Backed Securities in the 1990's.

Right, and has nothing to do with the fact that most children in school are taught everything about socialism. Looking at the curriculum, the only surprise is that we have some children who aren't socialist. Hammer it into them for fifteen years and we are surprised when they exit with socialist ideals?

[Wisconsin+17]

Federal deficit not regional.

And? We still have Feds pushing for deficits.

I know of almost no federalists who is seriously pushing for single payer at the national level. I also know of two feds that are/were working to implement market competition on the Lincoln exchange. It is unfair to cherry pick things you don't like and write off the hard work of others as chopped liver.

Almost (!) = none. I know a former president of Atlasia who served as a Federalist, who as a Federalist pushed for single payer. 
 

I don't know what you are talking about. We passed a law easing constraints curriculum, called "Return Education to the Regions", that was sponsored by a member of another party initially. Perhaps you are writing that off because of personal issues with one of the original sponsors in question, Peebs.

It doesn't matter how you divide things up so long as they are teaching the same things. Having regional clones doesn't address (and in fact bypasses) fundamental freedoms on education, like Charter Schools and Homeschooling.

How is letting the regions decide their drug policies, forcing anything?

The fact that any restrictions on the drug policies would be shut down by the federal laws. As for the policy of the Federalists, it was a Federalist President that pushed for laws supporting legalization of cocaine and heroin. Where are folks who don't want to see any drugs at all supposed to go?

You made it quite clear that you support hard drugs being legal. Fine. Why then are you surprised when socons decide that they are unhappy with a party like this?

So all of the hard work that Mr. Reactionary, Lt, myself and others have put into passing Dumb regulations Repeals is meaningless because one regulation went the other way on your pet issue of hating LGBT people? 

And this is why you have lost people like me. This is no different than Hillary calling people who disagree with her as deplorables. Puberty blockers are no different than injecting your child with poison. They render a child, who is not capable of making the decision, sterile. They will destroy their ability to function normally and they are irreversible.

And yet, because of an agenda that demands that all kneel to it, it is not only legal but paid for by our taxpayer dollars. And we have the leader of the Federalists demanding that we kneel to the policy too.

The natural response to this madness is to simply leave the party and go our own way. Puberty blockers are horrible from a medical standpoint and horrible from a psychological standpoint. We have an obligation to protect children from malicious human experimentation, particularly that which has already been shown to have deleterious effects.

And you are going to stand here and label my stance as hate. Wow. I guess you've really drank the Woka Cola.

[Wisconsin+17]

Balancing a budget over night, would cause a recession, which would impede balancing the budget.

BS. You just don't have the political means to cut where cuts are needed. Which is fine. But then to go and say that you are deficit hawks despite running deficits.

Nobody is lecturing you for opposing drugs, and most every Federalist opposes single payer. Again you cherry pick the actions of a single individual or couple of inviduals to defame a party that is 95% pro-market healthcare, 80% pro-gun and overwhelmingly supports banning abortion after 20 weeks, simply because 80% of it also happens to be pro-LGBT.

As for cherry picking, that stance on drugs was held by the president of Atlasia who was a Federalist. That ain't cherry picking, no more than calling the Republicans to task for the actions of Dubya.

Well, gee. I wonder why  someone who is a faithful Catholic might have an issue with a party with a leader who says that he is motivated by hate. Gosh. I can't imagine why said person might no longer feel comfortable being in such a party.

It would be akin to saying that a Jewish member was adequately represented by Hamas.

As for fhtagn, I will let her speak for herself.

Libertarians don't impose their views on anyone

Well, then. Since you've apparently drunk the woka cola in labelling opinions to which you disagree as 'hate', then the party has actually set aside its libertarianism for progressivism. I actually said this quite awhile ago that one issue is distorting the Federalists so much that it is destroying them on every other issue. I was right then and right now. You seem to believe that nothing has changed, but something has. You are right that Libertarianisms by and large do not try to force their opinions on others, but they also don't label their opponents as haters.

Progressives, however, do. Progressives have a vision of society (check), that they seek to implement. They don't brook discourse (check), nor do they acknowledge dissent (also check).

you are a selective statist who embraces government when it is convenient to you and you want the Government the enforce your views on those issues.

I am not, nor have I ever been a libertarian. I have always been a conservative. I believe that the state does have a role to play and that natural law should govern the operation of the state. This is fundamentally different from a libertarian who believes that the best option is always the smallest state possible.

I believe that yes, the state has an obligation to protect it's borders and it's citizens and has the authority to limit the entry of goods within the state. These are all constitutional powers. I believe that the state does have a right to target the distribution of illegal drugs.

However, I would not say that the majority of my positions are based on state ideals. With respect to marriage, since I believe that natural law is above the state, errant state laws that violate natural laws are meaningless. No matter how much money is spent pursuing it. Marriage predates the existence of the nation state and is not subject to it, the same is with the Church. You would support 100 percent state intervention in marriage, whereas I would be fine with the state and the Church governing marriage in such a way that would protect the natural law. I see it as a mutual responsibility not the exclusive domain of the state.

What is significant is that neither one of us is arguing that the state has no role to play in marriage, but rather 'what should the role of the state be?'. You are making the progressive and not the libertarian argument with respect to marriage.

Frankly you are not making your case better here by labelling my positions as hate, Yankee.

[Wisconsin+17]

Again your recall was supported by a bipartisan coalition because of your behavior in the Delegates, not because of your ideological positions.

Why then did the fellow who filed for recall repudiate his own recall? It was seen as a massive overreaction and far beyond the expected norms. So much so that the first thing that was done afterwards was to prevent this by 'raising the bar', a transparently self-serving action, but one that was taken nonetheless.

What we forget is that this is a game. This is no different than shunning someone. Why would you expect that person to come back unless invited and why would you expect the person who was on your team who received such treatment to ever want to do anything with your party again?

It is not indictment against the Federalists or proof that we have abandoned Traditionalist conservatives to wolves.

No, sir, the indictment is worse, that you as a team do not stick up for their own members. A house divided against itself will never stand. Standing aside while one of your own gets beaten up isn't a moral affirmation against anything save cowardice.

Let me ask you a question, Yankee. Do you honestly think that if the roles were reversed, and you were in my seat and I were in yours, that I would be saying what you are here?

Or do you think I would be sticking up for you?

Choose wisely.

I listen more than you do Ben. I listen when people have issues, and I listened to Fhtagn when she had issues with ASV and I tried to find a workable solution that was within my power to achieve. I cannot drop someone in an ocean though or make them magically disappear.

It seems that this is a common thread within the federalists. You seem to see the situations as isolated and unrelated. This isn't the first time this has happened. Again I will let her speak up for herself regarding her issues with the party. I can only speak up about mine.

Lets be honest here, you are not rejecting the awful federalists "because Yankee, I just can't take it anymore". You are turning your back on playbook that has worked for TEN Years, that has delivered more concrete results in two years, than the real life GOP has in 100 fing years and all of that for an echo-chamber safe space.

Actually I am being honest. After being recalled by my own party and ousted from the seat that I legitimately won, I have no desire to continue working with the Federalists. Ever.

You seem to find this hard to understand. It's not even the first time either, as you mentioned with Hagrid!

Is not the whole basis of this effort because I refused to enforce conformity and demand that two or three members become like all the others?

You blame victims and protect the bullies. This has a negative effect of cohesion within the party. Most are willing to tolerate it but eventually pretty stark lines are crossed. Recall was a line that was crossed. You chose not to participate in it, but there were also no consequences for those who initiated the recall in the first place.

Why would you expect the aggrieved party to believe that they would ever get a fair hearing? If two people cannot work together within the same party the obvious solution (well, obvious to everyone other than you), is for those people to no longer be in the same party. You're unwilling to evict them out of the Federalists, so the people on the other side will naturally leave to do their own thing. When there are enough people who are aggrieved by the same clique of people, then what happens is what you are seeing here. Why do we have to work with the people we don't like and they don't like us when we can work with the amazing people we do enjoy working with?

you would have had me go to her and say "why didn't we talk about this first". Just like Blair and she would be a member of Peace Party right now or something.

Did I and have I? If not, why not? Perhaps there is more going on than you are privy to and there are things that you do not understand. I would personally be wary about talking about the interactions of two people that generally appear to be choosing to work together when trying to understand their motivations for doing so.

If anything, part of the problem is because I have not talked enough, and the members of the party have not spoken out enough about what we have accomplished and why it is important.

Honestly, I think what you needed to do was put your foot down with the intra party fighting about six months ago.

"Recall this, recall that". Get off the damn recall, We never recalled any of the other ACPers. It was not about conservatism, it was your actions that led to that, your actions alone and you have to accept that and move on.

Not when the recall initiator repudiated his own recall because he felt that his action was unwarranted. I'm curious what you are trying to achieve here. You could simply say, "you know what, Ben, recall was a sh**tshow". Instead you seem to be doubling down on it.

Why? Recall has now become an issue because of the stance you have taken on it. Had you simply admitted that it was unwarranted there would be nothing more to discuss. Heck, you even voted against it.

So please tell me why your assessment at the time was incorrect. Who was right? Yankee then or Yankee now.

Gays aren't destroying marriage, it is our policies as conservatives in real life that have furthered the destruction of the family and marriage and it will require acknowledging those failures and moving forward to fix the root causes of the problems.

You cannot fix a problem unless there is general agreement on what the solution ought to be. There are disagreements as to what the solution should be and so the problem will remain unfixed.

Under your model if you don't comply 100% with dogmatic conformity you are out

How would I have ran things? As soon as I heard that a party member was attempting to recall another party member this is what would have happened.

One, I would talk with both party members to understand the dispute and how it reached the point.

Two, I would have insisted that the party who initiated the recall withdraw the recall. This gives the recall initiator two choices here. One, to do as he has been instructed, or two to continue to pursue recall. If they choose to pursue recall, I would let them know that the would not be renominated for their seat, would not be nominated for a different seat and they were on their own.

Recall is not a small matter. Had you let the consequences be known when it was submitted, it would not have gone forth. As it was you lost a member, and showed the general impotence of the party and gave Labor a massive victory, thus pretty much ensuring permanent minority for the Federalists. Ouch.

Just my two cents.

[Wisconsin+17]

Hello All!

I wanted to wait before doing so, but I guess this is the best time now.

Some of you have wondered why I came back after six months away. I want to thank fhtagn for inviting me back.

However, I am not going to stay. My real life commitments have not abated. Before I go, I have some important business.

First off, I want to transfer leadership of the ACP officially to fhtagn. It is her party and the party will reflect whatever policies she and the rest of you have chosen to implement. I am rather touched that so many of you have chosen to revive the ACP. I would not have dreamed such a thing.

You really brought a smile to my face. Thank you all of you, particularly Mr. R, fhtagn, and PiT.

I also want to thank Yankee again. You have helped me many times in the past. You are a good man, and I wish you the best of your endeavours.

I will still try to reply to inquiries made in my box, but I am not going to be, nor planning to be active in running for office again.

Thank you all for your consideration!

Godspeed.

[Wisconsin+17]

Have you officially de-registered yet? I was going to look into your case (being that the Southern Region seems to be a party to it), but if you don't intend to stay, the point is moot.  

At present I have no desire to de register. I also do not plan on returning to the CoD so I will just be a peasant again.

I think the case should be resolved on its own merits as it will come up again with other members.

[Wisconsin+17]

Back when ASV was here the first time and he pushed to try and encourage the Federal Gov't to act on certain things, including guns, I and many others pushed back hard on that being contrary to our party's philosophy and he left. I have not heard of him pushing the same since returning.

Yes, the Federalists have been quite strong on guns. No issues there. Healthcare the record has been mixed. Some good, some bad.

[Wisconsin+17]

If a gov't official is actively implementing an market based system with Gov't policy, is it really lassiez faire? There is a difference between Free Market, Capitalism, and Lassiez-Faire, all three mean something different.

I would argue based on the content and intent of Stolypin's reforms that they were laissez faire, and needed the backing of the state due to the Mir. Collectivization could only be reversed through government intervention.

I never said Lassiez Faire caused the Bolshevik Revolution, I said that Soviet KGB (decades later) in the 1960's was actively encouraging the spread of libertarian economic thought because they thought (THEY THOUGHT) it would help cause chaos, piss people off and cause them to look towards socialism for answer.

Interesting comment. I have nothing further to add.

Young people today are becoming socialists in record numbers because of the instability in the economy caused by an unregulated financial sector. Some sectors need regulation. I will fight to the death against regulation in most any sector, especially the railroads. But when it comes to finance, you need some basic disclosure, accountability, and limits and the size and reach of a single firm. Very easy to slide down the slippery slope to corporatism with a monopolitistic banking sector, and I opposed Dodd-Frank because it was too complex even while support Glass-Steagal. Dodd-Frank has regulatory capture written all over it.

You are quite wrong. The root of the instability at present has quite a bit to do with fiscal policy but it isn't because of the lack of regulations, but rather the excess of regulations. Currently the way the market works is that it is very tough to break into, as competition is regulated away and oligarchies have formed in many American industries. American fiscal policy is geared towards cheap debt and debt slavery, with low interest rates coupled with fewer opportunities.

The solution to the problems is deregulation, not more regulation. The state protects the price of houses because it collects taxes on the purported value of the houses, not their actual market value. Falls in housing prices will reduce the taxes paid to the state so the state has a vested interest in the maintenance of housing prices. This is why there are so many subsidies for mortgages, and why lenders were regulated into providing more and cheaper credit for buyers who were not otherwise qualified. This had the effect in the temporary expansion of the housing market, but because it was not based on the strength of the economy, this increased instability in the long term as these houses came back into foreclosure.

The best turnaround for the American economy would be to eliminate regulations, cutting taxes and spending to pay down the debt and letting the market take advantage of these actions. We saw this in 1920 under Mellon. We haven't seen it in the American economy since. The 1950s had demographic and competitive advantages that the US does not possess today.  

[Wisconsin+17]

And I think it is disingenuous to push a real life model as superior, when it has trillion dollar deficits and keeps adding to it. We made a decision to two years ago to enact paygo, over the objections of some of the people now in the ACP and this made very bill have to be funded or killed because it couldn't be funded. This has enabled us to stop the bleeding and start reducing the deficit by going back and funding programs, by eliminating and consolidating those we don't need and by growing the economy as well.

True. Work has been done to reduce the problems, but the point of being a conservative is to work towards the ultimate solution. Deficits can be eliminated.

Is there more work to be done, yes, but I never said it wouldn't be hard and wouldn't take time.

DFW? He sat back and let me dictate health care policy, hardly "pushing it".   

Meanwhile I had to put out papers explaining why this was a bad idea. Again, he was not only a Federalist but our president for awhile. Part of the frustration stems from bad policy being pushed out by a few prominent folks within the Federalist party, while the rest of us had to clean up their messes.
 

I support homeschooling and fought TNF for years to protect it, as did the Federalists in the Senate at the time. Again, not sure what you are talking about it.

You did, sure, which is why my beef isn't with you but with other party members who sought and seek to reduce it.

Politics is about setting priorities and building a coalition that can win around those priorities, it is not about "I get everything I want".

Given that we have five parties that support drugs, I think there should be at least one that does not.

For many years any kind of conservatism existing at all on any basis was an accomplishment in itself and winning a Presidential election was pure fantasy. Federalists prioritized the social issues of life and guns because those we could achieve progress on, and we did.

Agreed, and in office I happily did the same. That doesn't mean that then is now though or that a party that is opposed to pot and hard drugs is electorally untenable given the political climate of today. We don't expect the Federalists to take up that mantle, but I can't see why the ACP should not be able to do so.

I have never demanded you kneel to anything Ben.

Hagrid did and so did TM. So this is hardly a new issue between me and the federalists in particular.

the concrete steps for him to correct his ways issue wise.

I have given you concrete steps that you have chosen not to undertake with Young Texan. You could have asked him to resign his position in the House at the time. There are ways to discipline folks without kicking them out of the party. Complaining that concrete actions weren't given to you when you have chosen not to take said actions when they are politically inconvenient is a demonstration of priorities, which is also why I left and why I am happy now.

I don't expect the Federalist party to sacrifice it's electoral viability for me, but I am also not going to stay with a party that doesn't protect me. Thus, me joining the ACP is the best solution for all involved.

I am a methodical person, if you want something happened, give me the basis for the problem and the concrete steps to correct it, especially if I ask directly. This has never happened in any such instance where the Federalist Party has had a blow up in the last two years.

You received concrete actions from me and chose not to undertake them.

I will say this Ben, I do have a lot of respect for you even though I disagree with you on a few issues and more generally on strategy, priorities and tactics. I actually think that ACP would be better off if you had decided to stay in this game, because I would much rather be hashing out political issues here on the AFE board with you, than the pesonality driven bs that dominates discord.

I was happy as the ACP leader and working with you. I think that was a very productive time for both of us. But my life has changed to the point where I have to focus on other things. I want to get married, and thus the Atlas will take on a smaller role. It may come and is likely to come fairly soon where I won't be on at all.

[Wisconsin+17]

Speech! Speech!



Well, I have to say this wasn't something I expected to see. I've been quite happy sitting out in the ranch and enjoying my retirement from Atlasian politics. It seems like YoungTexan has gotten himself in a bit of a sticky wicket.

I'm not sure why. The purpose of this game is that people can vote on things and people and see them enacted. We've had all manner of rather radical and poorly thought out votes which have succeeded, some of which have been very deleterious to the game. Some of which also attracted considerable controversy.

However, sirs, it's the liberals ox that is being gored today. Ohoho! We can't have that you see. Progress is like a millstone, it only grinds one way. You can't lift it up or turn the crank the other way and have it be 'democratic', or the 'will of the people'. Oh no. The people all know what is best for them and it's a good thing that we have people like our erstwhile Bliar to tell them what they ought to believe or think.

We are, at least last I checked, a representative democracy. What that means is that many of us, once elected, are, theoretically, representing a wide swathe of views and constituents, many of whom share opinions that are not our own. One could make the argument that this means that one must often vote against one's own personal conscience because that is what the will of the people that you represent want.

Now, I haven't even shrunk away from controversy, but I knew and understood my role was to be a voice for people who otherwise weren't getting much respect, recognition, and yes, representation. That means supporting their beliefs and working hard to see that things get passed and that they feel heard and respected.

There's that word again, respect. When's the last time you ever heard a liberal saying that they respect you? Probably just before he raises your taxes and claims that it's for your own benefit. I suppose he'd also tell you that the piss running down your leg is because it's raining.

Now, if you talk to Bliar, or any of them, they'll tell you that we've 'moved beyond' racism into a world in which the only racists are the same Southern Whites who never owned slaves, never owned their own land, who worked damn hard for a living and never got a break. Why is it always that the sins of the world have to be visited on you? Only somethng like the 1 percent, the 2 percent actually owned slaves, many of these were northerners who came to the south because of the ownership. Apparently, money talks more than democracy. Why should the 1 and the 2 percent, especially in the party supposedly representing the working man, speak for you?

People ask me about the southern flag. I often ask them. "Why do you think that the stars and bars is a saltire cross of St. Andrew and St. Patrick? Crickets. Why is it the blue and the white on the field of red? Crickets. They couldn't explain the heraldry but they damn sure know that it's racist. Well, that's because it represents the Scots (in St. Andrew's cross), and the Irish (in St. Patrick). In opposition to the Crown which has the cross of St. George later emblazoned by the same crosses in a similar manner.

The south was largely settled and ran by the Scotch and the Irish and the Stars and Bars represents that and represents them. Rather than a flag of racism it is a core part of Southern culture. But I guess we'll have to let Bliar explains what it really means, "white nationalism". But ask Bliar if he supports Black Lives Matter, and he'll bend over and tell you that he's woke af.

So why is it that every other culture every other region can be proud of their heritage and not the South? And not white people? Because some white people did bad things in the past? Sins aren't specific to the white man, and to say that is no different than the racism that northerners are apparently immune from due to the contribution of those who died decades before their ancestors came to the country. We do have a term for that, stolen glory. Why should those who immigrated in the 20th century get credit for the sacrifices of the 19th?

In any case I'm sorry I didn't see the bill. I would have gladly voted for it. I'm surprised the proponents didn't contact me beforehand. I am happy to see that the South is rising once again.

God bless all of you!

[Wisconsin+17]

I just wanted to reply to Lumine here, since I'm not permitted to actually speak my case here.

Your case opens up accusing the RG of "personal animosity" (a case that is on shaky ground at best).

Opinion.

You going out of your way to refer to her by the incorrect gender pronouns is, actually, a very obvious case of "personal animosity."

Opinion.

It is therefore relevant to the case as it paints it as hypocritical and most likely charged with personal bias. I doubt you would be so eager to get rid of the RG if they were, say, Wulfric.

Even if both of your presuppositions were true, the conclusion does not follow. That would be like saying that the plaintiff's behavior were relevant to the outcome of the case. That's obviously not true. Say someone was known for being a ne'er do well, and had spent some time in jail. If someone else assaulted him on the street, would that mean that the assault on him was justified? No.

It is yours, Peebs, and quite a few other people's 'opinion' that calling people by a different pronoun constitutes prima facie hatred. But that assumes a few things.

One, you're imputing motivation. If someone sincerely believes that x is true, and they express that x is true, is it necessarily so that when they state that x is true that they intend animosity?

That's where you've missed the plot.

If a commie states to me that he believes Capitalism oppresses the people, I don't regard that as a personal opinion charged against me. Why, because I know it has nothing at all to do with me personally, but everything to do with the state of his beliefs.

(Also "facts, not feelings" is bullsh!t. In no way is that synonymous with "sound, intelligent reasoning" to disregard other people, and frankly such a paradigm should be understood as much more synonymous with "sociopathic behavior.")

Facts, not feelings *is* very important in court. We might want people to do xyz but that does not make it right to compel them to do xyz under force of Law.

But what do I know? Apparently I'm just one of those libertarians...

[Wisconsin+17]

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on. A child says he hasn't anything on."
"But he hasn't got anything on!" the whole town cried out at last.

The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all.

[Wisconsin+17]

You're southern speaker, Muaddib. What have you done to assist one of your constituents with his ballot issues?

Did you ever PM said constituent? Did you ever make an attempt to resolve the issue to everyone's satisfaction?

Or did you just sit there with your thumb up your butt? This is what's called, 'accountability'. I know you're not happy that I'm not just giving you a pass and electing you because well, "you're apparently on my team".

You didn't vote to put me back on the ballot, so why on earth should I make the effort to put you on said ballot?

I figure that since you did nothing for six months that warrants me treating your sudden "interest" in me the same way.

You might not think that's right or fair, but that's on you, not me.

[Wisconsin+17]

Well, well, well. It seems like pretty much everything I've warned about has come to pass. We've got the crazy left destroying all the statues from everyone they consider racist including the founders of this country.

Yes, sir, there's nothing like being patriotic by posting methods to topple the monuments erected in honour of Washington and Abraham Lincoln! Obviously a HUGE racist. Of course, you need not point out that destroying monuments just because they depict white people is racist in and of itself, but that's another matter entirely.

Next we have the whole Burn, Loot, Murder movement... oh wait, Black Lives Matter. I'm sorry. I got a bit carried away there... with all the peaceful protesting that's been going down here. Can't say I've seen anything like it since '68. Only this time they are trying to burn down other people's neighborhoods rather than their own.

In any case, folks are probably wondering why I've decided to give this another shot. Well, why not? It's obvious that the solution to radical lefties is even more radical lefties.  Because this time communism just might work.

From what I can see the Left believes that if they steamroll all the opposition that they can finally have their one true utopia where everyone thinks the same. Well. all I have to say is they need to hold on.

We're not done yet.

All I can offer is the same as always, to roll up the sleeves and get back to work again. Looking forward to setting things to the Right once more.

Yessir, there's a new sheriff and he needs his deputy!

God bless each and every one of you!

[Wisconsin+17]

Glad to see some new faces in the game.

[Wisconsin+17]

Yes, imagine a world where referring to Marx was censored.

[Wisconsin+17]

Howdy, ya'll. Just passing through. I hope all of you are doing your blessed best in these difficult times.

Just wanted to give a shoutout to some old friends like Yankee, and PiT, and fhtagn. Thanks for looking out for me. I appreciate the invites to return, but life's sorta been in the way in a good way.

God bless each and every one of you!